Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT

Inter-city Services

Ms. Richardson: asked the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects to meet the chairman of British Rail to discuss the inter-city strategy.

Mr. Tom Cox: asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement of future plans for inter-city railway services.

Mr. Waller: asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he has received British Rail's proposals for its inner-city business.

The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Nicholas Ridley): I received the strategy study recently and have already had one discussion about it with the chairman. I shall wish to have further discussions with him before reaching a final view on the strategy.

Ms. Richardson: Will the Secretary of State admit that it is impossible for inter-city to achieve its 5 per cent. return on assets by 1988, as the right hon. Gentleman wishes, without cities such as Aberdeen, Plymouth, Sheffield, Hull and Nottingham having their inter-city connections affected?
Will he withdraw the Serpell-by-stealth policy and make sure—and give a guarantee to the House—that at least the present, inadequate level of inter-city services is maintained?

Mr. Ridley: I do not know where the hon. Lady gets all that from. It is wholly untrue. The strategy study predicts a major improvement in the sector's financial performance by 1988–89. It does not yet show the business achieving the full 5 per cent. target in that year. The study is complex and important and I shall need to study it further before reaching conclusions upon it.

Mr. Tom Cox: Is the Secretary of State aware that the great problems faced by British Rail are the target imposed upon it and the fact that, in developing an inter-city strategy, it has had to take note of what the Secretary of State says and balance that against possible cuts in services?
Will the Secretary of State assure the House, therefore, that conditions will not be imposed by his Department of future developments, in particular on the development of the important east coast main line service?

Mr. Ridley: I have received the study, which will be published by British Rail. It may be necessary to remove

some commercially sensitive matter. When the report is published and the hon. Gentleman can study it, he, with his hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Ms Richardson), will probably conclude that the newspaper reports they may have been reading are at variance with the study.
Further, the objective of inter-city breaking even and, indeed, achieving a 5 per cent. target return on its assets is not affected by the PSO, because this part of the railway is treated differently for financial purposes.

Mr. Waller: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the acknowledgement from the Conservative Benches of the considerable efforts by British Rail's top management to run the business in an efficient and businesslike way? Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is incorrect to say that the Government have not supported British Rail in the past and that that has been shown to be a myth? Does my right hon. Friend accept that prolonged failure to reach a decision on the east coast main line will make it much more difficult for British Rail's top management to convince the work force of our commitment to a modern, efficient and profitable rail service?

Mr. Ridley: I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for his well-deserved tribute to the efforts of British Rail's management to impart more commerciality into the railways. I entirely agree with him. I received the east coast main line submission on 25 May and the inter-city strategy on 22 June. They are major and complex documents and I should like time to make sure that I find the right answer. I hope to reply before the House rises for the recess but I know that the House will understand if, in the interest of getting the decision absolutely right, I do not succeed in making that deadline.

Sir Dudley Smith: When next my right hon. Friend meets the chairman of British Rail, will he impress upon him the importance of running inter-city services on time? Is my right hon. Friend aware that there has been deterioration in that respect on the Birmingham-Coventry-Euston line, that on eight out of the last 10 occasions when I have used that service the train has been late, and that my experience is by no means unique?

Mr. Ridley: Punctuality is an important factor of railway operation. I am sure that my hon. Friend will draw his unfortunate experience to the attention of the chairman, because it is he rather than me who is responsible for that. The railways can improve their financial performance partly by improving their punctuality, thus attracting more customers.

Mr. Kirkwood: As the Secretary of State said that he received the report only on 22 June, will he make every possible effort to make a statement before the House goes into recess, because he will understand hon. Members' difficulties in asking him questions after that? Will he confirm that for an investment of about £200 million on the London-Edinburgh route British Rail could save almost £1 a mile, which is £1,000 per round trip? Will the right hon. Gentleman take on board the importance of the electrification proposal for the whole of the south-east of Scotland, which depends exclusively on that route for transport south?

Mr. Ridley: I cannot confirm any of the hon. Gentleman's figures, which are new to me. His figure for the value of the investment is wrong, because the choice is between investment in new diesel stock or electrifying


the line. Either way, there has to be investment. With regard to the date, I told my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. Waller) that I hoped it would be possible to give an answer before the House rose, but if it is not I am sure the House will agree that it is such an important issue that a little more time should be taken to get the answer right.

Mr. Prescott: I am glad that the Secretary of State now recognises that inter-city cannot possibly pay its way by meeting its target by 1986. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that that is partly because its economics have been undermined by his competition policy for buses on the same routes. Will he confirm that the whole electrification programme does not depend upon an inter-city strategy and can stand on its own, as reports have said since 1978?

Mr. Ridley: Inter-city does not quite meet the 5 per cent. target that we set for it, but I think that the hon. Gentleman is being unduly pessimistic about how close it comes to it. However, he will see the figures for himself in due course. I do not accept that the inter-city strategy and the east coast mainline electrification prospectus do not go together. The business must be considered as a whole. The railways plan the business as a whole before major investment is contemplated on one or other part of it.

Dr. Marek: asked the Secretary of State for Transport how many train miles of inter-city services were operated by British Rail in 1983; and what is the forecast number for the current year.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. David Mitchell): The figure was 48·3 million in 1983. BR's latest forecast is that inter-city train miles will rise to 48·6 million in 1984.

Dr. Marek: I am sure that that statement will be welcomed by the country, but will the Minister give us one assurance that major cities such as Leeds, Sheffield or Chester will not be deprived of their inter-city service as a result of his consideration of the inter-city strategy?

Mr. Mitchell: Those are matters for British Rail, but I have no knowledge of any suggestion that any of those services would be eliminated from the inter-city network.

Mr. Harris: When will the strategy be published? Will my hon. Friend take this opportunity of killing once and for all persistent rumours that high-speed train services to the west country and Cornwall are at risk?

Mr. Mitchell: Once again, I have no knowledge of any proposal to cut train services to my hon. Friend's constituency. Publication is a matter for British Rail. I understand that it intends to publish the report, but it will do so without the commercially confidential information that it contains.

Mr. Barry Jones: Does the Under-Secretary of State know that the chairman of British Rail has refused to sanction electrification of the Crewe to Holyhead line, or even a high-speed train service from Euston to Holyhead? Does the hon. Gentleman know that the unemployment problems in Clwyd and Gwynedd are severe and that attempts to find new work would be greatly facilitated if such services were available? What will the hon. Gentleman do to enable British Rail to have the funding necessary so that my constituents have a better chance of gaining new work?

Mr. Mitchell: It is for BR to decide which services it will provide and the type of train service—inter-city or otherwise.

Mr. Corbett: The Government pay the money.

Mr. Mitchell: It is for BR to decide. It is a matter of considering how many customers will be attracted, how many people will use the service and whether the service is viable and provides value for money for BR and the taxpayer.

Sir Anthony Grant: Is my hon. Friend aware that a most important inter-city route lies between the great city of Cambridge and the capital? Will he therefore look favourably on any proposal to electrify the line between Cambridge and Royston?

Mr. Mitchell: The investment proposal for electrification of the line to Cambridge has already been approved on one route. The proposal was not approved on the other route because it was not the best value for money.

Mr. Snape: Why are train services between Bristol and Manchester a part of the inter-city network, while those between Liverpool and Hull are not? What relevance does either of those lines have for the electrification of the east coast main line?

Mr. Mitchell: The concept of the inter-city service has grown up over a period. It originated as a marketing exercise and has continued to its present form as a sector within British Rail. It is for British Rail to decide—[Laughter.] It is all very well for the Opposition to laugh. We do not manage the railways. It would be wrong for Ministers or politicians to seek to manage BR. That is much better done by professional railwaymen who know their jobs.

British Rail

Mr. Sims: asked the Secretary of State for Transport what meetings he has had with the chairman of British Rail since 14 May; and what subjects were discussed.

Mr. Boyes: asked the Secretary of State for Transport when he last met the chairman of British Rail; and what was discussed.

Mr. Ridley: I have had five meetings with the chairman of British Rail since 14 May, most recently on 4 July. Each time, we discussed a large number of matters of mutual interest.

Mr. Sims: Did any of those matters of mutual interest include the new timetables introduced on 14 May, especially as they affect my constituents and other commuters in south-east London? Is my right hon. Friend aware that the letters to the chairman of British Rail complaining about poorer services under the new timetables are only a fraction of the complaints voiced by the users of the service, who are further frustrated by continual delays and cancellations? Will my right hon. Friend invite the chairman of British Rail to review those services and to restore as quickly as possible an adequate and punctual service?

Mr. Ridley: My hon. Friend has done a splendid job in bringing those deficiencies to the attention of the chairman of British Rail, including during an Adjournment


debate to which my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State responded. I am glad that I can tell my hon. Friend that British Rail recognises that some of the morning peak services on his line have been overcrowded. Recently, it lengthened two of the trains that call at Grove Park. It is now considering whether to stop two more trains there to help relieve congestion.

Mr. Boyes: Does the Secretary of State recognise that —this follows the supplementary question of the hon. Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Sims) — that not only London but many other areas have been affected, some experiencing cuts of up to 25 per cent. and others cuts of more than 60 per cent., in spite of his allegation that the cuts would be no more than 2 per cent.? There has been a deteriorating service and overcrowded trains because BR has not been able to provide the services that would have been possible if the Government had not imposed those cuts. Will the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that he will carry out an immediate assessment of the effects of the cuts to ensure that the same thing does not occur when new timetables are next introduced?

Mr. Ridley: The hon. Gentleman should know that his figure of 2 per cent. overall is about correct. That is for the whole of the railway network, and within such an average one can find better and worse figures, as he no doubt will seek to do. I do not believe that that is due to the Government's financial control of British Rail. I believe that it is due to the change in travelling patterns. British Rail is right to seek to meet passengers' demands —increasing services where they require it and reducing them when they do not.

Mr. Yeo: Has my right hon. Friend discussed with the chairman of British Rail whether it can compete fairly with deregulated coach services, given the low licence fees charged to those coach operators, and the considerable environmental disadvantages that are associated with road transport.

Mr. Ridley: For longer distances within the country, the coach is cheapest, British Rail next and the aeroplane is the most expensive. I am interested to ensure that we try to even the competition between those three modes of transport to make it as fair as possible. That is why we have asked British Rail to make a modest return on its inter-city service and why in due course I shall be publishing proposals for the bus industry which may have some effect on the problem that my hon. Friend so rightly mentioned.

Mr. Anderson: The Minister will be aware that earlier this year there was an unprecedented directive from Rail House to regional managers that they should not discuss investment priorities with parliamentarians. Was that done with the approval of the Minister, and does he have views on it as a proper way for the heads of nationalised industries to work?

Mr. Ridley: If I were to have views and comment upon directives from the boards of nationalised industries to their managers, I should have time to do nothing else but read them. I believe that it is fundamentally wrong that I or any other Secretary of State should comment upon how the railways manage their internal affairs.

Mr. Stanbrook: When my right hon. Friend next meets the chairman of British Rail and discusses communter services, will he impress upon him the need

to take into account the experience and expertise of rail commuter organisations such as the Orpington District Rail Passengers Association, because they have a contribution and expertise to offer which is not always present in British Rail? They can help to match efficiency with the convenience of the travelling public.

Mr. Ridley: I accept entirely my hon. Friend's comment. I believe that British Rail keeps in touch with its consumer bodies. I believe that it has now worked out beneficial proposals for keeping in touch with hon. Members about changes in timetables. I further believe that in the London area the arrangements for liaison between the chairman of British Rail and the chairman of London Regional Transport, which I am about to set up, will make for even more co-ordination.

Mr. Wigley: At the meetings, did the chairman raise with the Secretary of State any uncertainty about the future of the Cambrian coast railway line and the central Wales railway line, about which there are rumours? If the chairman has not made any suggestion about the withdrawal or closure of those lines, will the Secretary of State say that clearly so that the users of those lines will be in no uncertainty as to their future?

Mr. Ridley: At none of my meetings with the chairman of British Rail have those lines been mentioned, nor has there been any suggestion about their closure.

Mr. Beaumont-Dark: Has my right hon. Friend yet received a letter of thanks from the chairman of British Rail for his refusal to increase the speed limit on motorways from 70 mph to 80 mph, which can only be to help British Rail, because there is no other logical reason for it?

Mr. Ridley: I congratulate my hon. Friend on his ingenuity, but the letter, which I await eagerly, has not yet arrived.

Mr. Janner: As part of the Government's non-management or mismanagement of British Rail, have they become aware of the dissatisfaction felt by people who travel from St. Pancras to Leicester about the almost complete lack of investment on that part of the line? When he next sees the chairman of British Rail, will he please protest about that matter on behalf of my constituents and those who travel to my constituency?

Mr. Ridley: It is funny, but I detect a growing body of support for and encouragement of British Rail from my hon. Friends. It seems that it is only the Opposition who are knocking it now.

Mr. Sumberg: Has my right hon. Friend discussed with the chairman of British Rail the deplorable standards of catering and buffet facilities on many inter-city trains? If he has not, will he say that privatisation is an option that is open to it?

Mr. Ridley: Perhaps I spoke too soon. My hon. Friend will be pleased to know that the Parliamentary Under-Secretary has been pursuing the question of introducing private catering and capital into all of British Rail's catering activities at stations and on trains. I hope that we shall soon see an opportunity for competition and for others to supply a better service where they can.

Mr. Cartwright: Has the Secretary of State discussed with the chairman of British Rail its reported plans to reopen the Snow Hill tunnel connection to provide a through train route to cross London? In view of the obvious benefits of the scheme to travellers from north and south London, will he tell the House when it is likely to come into operation?

Mr. Ridley: No, Sir. The chairman has not raised that matter with me.

British Rail Engineering Ltd.

Mr. Gregory: asked the Secretary of State for Transport what value, in £ sterling, were exports by British Rail Engineering Ltd. in each year since 1979 and to date in 1984; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. David Mitchell: The exports for each of the years were: £27 million, £34 million, £19 million, £3 million and £1·5 million.
I understand that BREL's export sales between January and May 1984 were £12·3 million and that further orders worth some £50 million have been secured.

Mr. Gregory: The House will agree that the most recent trend is encouraging after a fairly disappointing profile. In view of British Rail Engineering's large surplus capital, will my hon. Friend assure the House that British Rail management is putting its full resources into the export potential, and also that we have an opportunity to compete fairly within the European Community with French, German and other carriage works?

Mr. Mitchell: BREL management is putting considerable resources into its export drive. Last week it launched its international coach. I joined BREL management in welcoming representatives from 20 overseas countries. It has already secured the first order for the coach, worth £3·3 million, from Gabon. The railbus is on demonstration routes in Thailand, Malaysia, Denmark and the United States. Further orders for rolling stock have been secured from Coras Iompair Eireann.
Regarding European competition, there are difficulties where there are competing nationally-owned railway lines, but I shall consider my hon. Friend's point further.

Mr. Eggar: In view of the considerable success of BREL, when does my hon. Friend think that he will denationalise it?

Mr. Mitchell: My right hon. Friend asked the chairman of British Rail to examine the way forward for BREL. That will be one of the options which the chairman will consider, but he has not yet reported to my right hon. Friend.

British Airways

Mr. Dobson: asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he is satisfied with the accountancy policy of British Airways.

Mr. David Mitchell: British Airways' recently published accounts for 1983–84 accord with standard accounting practice, and were audited by a leading firm of accountants.

Mr. Dobson: Does the Parliamentary Under-Secretary agree that British Airways' accounting practices inflated the deficit in 1982–83 and the profits in 1983–84, and may

have a little to do with the Government's intention to dispose of the shares? Does he further agree that if the accountants were a team of ice skaters they would probably get more marks for artistic interpretation than for technical merit?

Mr. Mitchell: The accounts of British Airways have been audited by a leading firm of independent auditors in the City. I do not believe that the hon. Gentleman's criticsm of the audit would be borne out by anyone outside the House who is involved in accountancy. The aircraft were previously valued without having a residual value after depreciation. They have now been given a residual value, which is in line with the general practice of other companies. The only other major change in the accounts is in the valuation of buildings and properties, which have been revalued from time to time, as is normal accounting practice.

Mr. Higgins: Are any Government financial guarantees to British Airways still outstanding? If so, are they still needed?

Mr. Mitchell: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Carter-Jones: Will the Minister now make a clear statement on routes and their future? When he makes that statement—I hope soon—will he clearly show that the routes belong to the British people?

Mr. Mitchell: My right hon. Friend has asked the Civil Aviation Authority to report on the route structure of British Airways. When that report is received and my right hon. Friend has considered it, he will announce his decision.

Departmental Resources

Mr. Thurnham: asked the Secretary of State for Transport what further plans he has for controlling the use of resources in his Department following the report, "Financial Management in Government Departments."

The Minister of State, Department of Transport (Mrs. Lynda Chalker): We are currently engaged in a review of the objectives and cost of the Department's activities. An accountancy adviser has recently been appointed and the Finance Directorate is being strengthened to develop the Department's management accounting systems and review the planning and control of programme expenditure.

Mr. Thurnham: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. What further progress has been made since the last report and what benefits have there been to the Department?

Mrs. Chalker: Our review of objectives and costs is in progress. A performance indicator and output measures have been developed for the Department's main activities, and several were published in this year's public expenditure White Paper. The MAXIS system has completed its first trial year. We are using it to monitor and control the Department's administrative costs. We are making a significant increase in cost-consciousness throughout the Department, especially by giving line managers far greater freedom to make the best use of their budgets without constant referral.

Mr. Maclean: With regard to cost consciousness in the Department, and with a view to improving economic performance, will my hon. Friend pay special attention to


the excellent booklet which she has just received from the Temple Sowerby bypass committee, which puts forward proposals for a bypass in my constituency at a fraction of the cost of the one originally planned by the Department, but which was later unfortunately scrapped? Does she agree that that is an economic use of resources?

Mrs. Chalker: I congratulate my hon. Friend on his ingenuity. Of course I will examine the booklet carefully. Any sensible cost saving that can be found will be given much further study.

Sealink (UK) Ltd.

Mr. Colvin: asked the Secretary of State for Transport what progress there has been with the privatisation of Sealink.

Mr. Ridley: The British Railways Board invited formal bids for Sealink last week and bids have now been received. These are now being considered by the board.

Mr. Colvin: Does my right hon. Friend accept that that news will be welcomed by Sealink's employees, whose morale was beginning to suffer because of uncertainty about the company's future? Was he aware of some alarmist talk about industrial action over the plans to privatise Sealink, and does he therefore welcome the news that the executive committee of the National Union of Seamen has instructed its officials to seek talks with prospective buyers of Sealink as being in the best interests of all concerned with the company's future?

Mr. Ridley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, and I confirm that that much more sensible course has been adopted by the NUS, which will seek talks with the successful bidder. The offers expire on 20 July, and I hope that a decision can be made before then.

Mr. Stephen Ross: Can the Secretary of State assure the House that he is satisfied with the proposed privatisation of Sealink? Would it not be better to scrap the entire deal and start again, or let British Rail get on with the job of running the service properly?

Mr. Ridley: Scrapping the entire deal would not do much good for ferries to the hon. Gentleman's constituency. He would not be thanked on the Isle of Wight for his advice, and I shall not take it. We are evaluating the offers, and the sale will be announced as soon as possible.

Mr. Prescott: Is the Secretary of State aware that British Rail Investment Ltd., the body responsible for selling Sealink, has a deplorable record in the disposal of public assets—hotels and land —and in giving away Hoverspeed to management for £11 million, which was no price at all? Will he assure us that this time he will step in to prevent the disposal of an asset at a deplorable price and against the taxpayers' interest if the price so reflects it?

Mr. Ridley: I would not agree to a sale at a price which did not reflect the value of the assets being sold. The relationship between British Rail and Sealink has been long and highly integrated. To some extent they depend upon each other, so the slight difficulty in defining the exact demarcation between the two has caused some comment. However, that is an inevitable part of the sale of such a company.

Passenger Coaches

Mr. Hal Miller: asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he has any information on the number of new passenger coaches ordered and put into service since the deregulation of express road services and as to how many of these new coaches were British made.

Mrs. Chalker: Many new express services have been introduced since deregulation, but the figures available for registrations of the vehicles do not distinguish between buses and coaches. Between 1980 and 1983 annual bus and coach registrations fell from about 5,800 to about 3,700. In 1980, 92 per cent. were vehicles made in Britain and in 1983, 79 per cent.

Mr. Miller: Does my hon. Friend agree that the opportunities arising from deregulation give a real chance to British coach manufacturers and that those concerned with supporting British Leyland at Bathgate and elsewhere should encourage them to seek such opportunities rather than to rely on the continuation of bus subsidies?

Mrs. Chalker: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. There is a marvellous opportunity for British Leyland, not only in export markets, where it has already made significant new strides, but in this country arising from deregulation. I sincerely hope that the stimulus to provide a better quality of coach is a challenge which British Leyland will take up, because we know that it can produce the best coaches in the world if it is organised to do so.

Mr. Wiggin: Is not the obvious success of these new services in no small measure due to the speed with which they are able to travel on our excellent motorway system? How does my hon. Friend align her decision last week to constrain motor cars — which, after all, are smaller, lighter and more manoeuvrable—to the same speed as these huge monsters?

Mrs. Chalker: The modern coach, under good road conditions, is capable of travelling at a maximum of 70 mph. Cars may be able to do better, but there is absolutely no doubt that were speeds to be increased above what they are today there would be more tragic accidents and greater problems on our motorways.

Orange Badge Scheme

Mr. David Atkinson: asked the Secretary of State for Transport what recent representations he has received about the present arrangements for the entitlement of an orange badge for disabled drivers.

Mrs. Chalker: The tightening up of orange badge eligibility rules to cut out abuse of the scheme was agreed in advance with organisations representing disabled people, who welcomed the changes. I have received representations about a small number of difficult individual cases. I have great sympathy for such cases, but no scheme can possibly cater for every kind of disability and still remain workable.

Mr. Atkinson: Has my hon. Friend had her attention drawn to the growing tendency of local authorities to replace car park attendants with the "Trust the Motorist" ticket-issuing machines, which disabled drivers, who would otherwise not be entitled to an orange badge, cannot reach, as a result of which they cannot park and shop? Will


she draw this point to the attention of social services authorities charged with determining the mobility of orange badge applicants?

Mrs. Chalker: I have indeed noted that in some ticket display car parks the machines are sited at too high a level for a chair-bound person to reach, either to put in the money or to take out the ticket. We shall bring this to the notice of any local authority which is aware of its responsibilities in this regard. There is no reason why these machines cannot be sited at a slightly lower level.

Mr. Wigley: Will the Minister also bear in mind that often the machines put off disabled people from parking within car parks, as a result of which they resort to using their orange badges on roads with yellow lines? Surely there is a real need to consider whether these machines should be allowed at all, unless they are manned in such a way as to help the disabled to use these car parks.

Mrs. Chalker: My own experience, and that of many disabled people with whom I have discussed this matter, is that, on the whole, these machines are among the simplest to operate. The hon. Gentleman has obviously come across a form of machine that is not so simple. I hope that he will draw the details to my attention so that I can take the matter further.

Airways (Route Licensing)

Mr. Adley: asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he is now able to announce any conclusion on the study by the Civil Aviation Authority of route licensing.

Mr. Cartwright: asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he has now received the report of the Civil Aviation Authority on its review of civil aviation policy.

Mr. Ridley: No, Sir, but I expect the Civil Aviation Authority's conclusions within a week or two.

Mr. Adley: As my right hon. Friend presumably referred the matter to the CAA in the first place to obtain an impartial and non-partisan view, does he agree that the understandable pressure from both British Airways and the independents is likely to make the decision much more difficult if it reverts to the political arena? In view of that, will he be sensible and give a categorical assurance now that he will accept and seek to implement the CAA report, when it is produced, regardless of its conclusions, and thereby avoid the differing pressures that he will receive from people as diverse as, for example, the Chancellor of the Exchequer and former BOAC pilots now in the Cabinet?

Mr. Ridley: We had better wait to see what the report says. He would be a brave man who bound himself to accept a report without knowledge of its contents. However, let me make it clear that I have remained entirely neutral throughout and said nothing about my views hitherto.

Mr. Cartwright: In considering the recommendations of the CAA, will the Secretary of State seek to ensure that the privatisation of British Airways does not endanger the ability of the independent airlines to compete, to survive and to go on providing the services which the consumers clearly want?

Mr. Ridley: Yes, but I believe that the proponents of more routes for the independents and those who believe

that BA should be left entirely as it is will acknowledge that the present dispute does not arise because of the privatisation of British Airways and that, even if British Airways were not be be privatised, the same arguments would be going on.

Oral Answers to Questions — ATTORNEY-GENERAL

Court Room Accommodation

Mr. Spencer: asked the Attorney-General if the Lord Chancellor is satisfied that sufficient court room accommodation is available for present requirements.

The Attorney-General (Sir Michael Havers): The existing court room accommodation cannot be considered adequate for anticipated future needs. The general position is broadly satisfactory for present purposes, given the recent growth in work load and current accommodation standards. The Lord Chancellor is constantly considering fresh means of increasing and improving accommodation both by the construction of new court rooms and the ad hoc use of existing premises.

Mr. Spencer: My right hon. and learned Friend is no doubt aware of the high standard of the courts in Leicester, but is he further aware that that high standard is not matched in places such as Newington Causeway, where temporary buildings have been in use for some years and where, in weather such as we have had recently, new poignancy is given to the phrase "the defendant got a grilling"? Can my right hon. and learned Friend give the House any idea when those buildings are likely to be taken out of use?

The Attorney-General: There has been a extensive programme since the early 1970s, on which £118 million has been spent. Since 1980 there has been a net increase of 54 court rooms — new ones and others replacing many old and unsuitable ones which had reached the end of their days. I can reassure my hon. and learned Friend to the extent that, in the near future, we hope to provide 59 more courts. By the end of the decade there will be about 76 more, at an extra cost of £200 million.

Mr. Corbett: Does the Attorney-General accept that it is intolerable that thousands of men and women are remanded in custody for periods up to at least 12 months awaiting trial partly because of the shortage of court room accommodation? Will he put more steam behind the provision of new accommodation?

The Attorney-General: A great deal of improvement has been effected, especially as regards those remanded in custody. The development that is going on is quite reasonable, especially when we have, as far as possible, to identify premises—they need large areas of land—suitable for the arrangements of all those involved in court cases.

Mr. Lawrence: Does my right hon. and learned Friend accept that the sooner we introduce tape-recorded interviews in serious cases in the Crown courts, and the sooner the Government make statements for the prosecution available to the defence in magistrates' courts, the sooner it will become less necessary to consider extending court accommodation?

The Attorney-General: Despite my hon. and learned Friend's ingenuity, I cannot see how that arises out of the question.

Mr. Ryman: To be fair, there has been a vast improvement in the provision of new court accommodation. However, will the Attorney-General ensure that there is an intensification of consultation between the Property Services Agency and those who work in the courts, as there have been a number of examples recently where those who work in the courts have not been consulted and modifications have had to be made subsequently?

The Attorney-General: I should be grateful if I could be informed of those cases. I recall that when the major extension to the Central Criminal Court was being considered there was massive consultation between the Bar, solicitors and everybody else concerned.

Riotous Assembly

Mr. Adley: asked the Attorney-General how many charges of riotous assemly have been considered by the Director of Public Prosecutions in the most recent convenient period.

The Attorney-General: Riot is not an offence which has to be reported to the Director of Public Prosecutions, but chief officers of police may refer cases to him if they need advice or assistance. So far as the records show, no such references were made in 1979, 1982, 1983 or so far this year. In 1980 four cases were referred, resulting in 11, 12, 10 and 21 persons, respectively, being charged with riot. In 1981, five cases were referred, resulting in 15 persons being charged with riot in one case.

Mr. Adley: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that many of my constituents find it hard to give credence to the fact that the riotous behaviour, organised violence, intimidation and threats to workers that they see on their television screens every night does not give rise to many prosecutions for breaking the criminal law, and, indeed, for contravening the law of riotous assembly, the understanding of which is clear to all? What can my right hon. and learned Friend say to my constituents about the apparent leniency being shown to those people?

The Attorney-General: The decision whether to prosecute, and for what offence, must be a matter for the chief constable or the police authority concerned. I do not think that my hon. Friend can know the facts. Let us consider two places. In Rotherham, which contains Orgreave, 251 cases are outstanding, 124 persons have been charged with unlawful assembly and 26 with riot. In Mansfield, 54 persons have been charged with riot. Therefore, that offence is being used quite widely in the area.

Mr. Alex Carlile: Is not the meaning of the old offence of riotous assembly far from clear, and is not a thoroughgoing review of such offences needed before the law can be properly applied in a way that is understandable to all?

The Attorney-General: As the hon. and learned Gentleman will know, the law of riot creates some grave evidential problems, but, as I said at my previous Question Time, I am particularly interested in the recommendations of the Law Commission to produce three types of unlawful

assembly which will be triable either way and, therefore, if consented to by the defence, could be dealt with quickly. That matter should be considered carefully.

Mr. Hickmet: Does my right hon. and learned Friend accept that many people in Britain are concerned about the organised efforts of riotous assembly at the moment? Is not one of the problems arising out of the present miners' dispute that if charges of riotous assembly or affray are brought against individuals a great delay will take place, as those are indictable offences, which will have to be tried by jury, and consequently a great period of frustration will occur?

The Attorney-General: That is right. The delays can be quite considerable. There are several alternative offences which could and often are charged. There are various assaults, criminal damage, and, if necessary, the Explosive Substances Act can be used. The alternatives that are available in a number of cases have been properly used.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: Because the law of riotous assembly is so unclear, as the Attorney-General agreed, would it not be a good idea for those cases that go to the DPP to be looked at by the learned Attorney-General himself?

The Attorney-General: Of those that have been referred to the Attorney-General so far—I think there are six—none includes riot. It is entirely a matter of discretion for the chief constable or for the county prosecuting solicitor to decide whether to consult the Director of Public Prosecutions. If they are referred, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, the Attorney-General is usually consulted. I hope that that would follow in this case.

Mr. Stokes: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that night after night ordinary people who are not lawyers see on the box most disgraceful acts being committed? What is happening to those rioters? Our present legal system may be somewhat antiquated, but is it not able to deal with mob rule such as we have today?

The Attorney-General: This cannot be described generally as mob rule. On a number of occasions there has been serious intimidation and violence. In such cases the decision must be left to chief constables. There is no way in which the Government can or should intervene in such circumstances. Chief constables are very experienced. The number of arrests exceeds 3,000 since the strike started, and, as I said to the House, a comparatively large number of people have been charged with unlawful assembly and riot, which are two separate offences. Some 124 have been charged with unlawful assembly and about 70 with riot. I emphasise that I should not wish to influence the chief constables in this matter.

Mr. John Morris: Is the Attorney-General aware that there is considerable anxiety about the working of the Bail Act in connection with persons charged with offences arising from picketing? Is he further aware that in so-called picket courts, bail forms, with conditions already printed, are given to the magistrates even before hearings take place? Is not this appearance of pre-judging an affront to British justice, in which each case should be seen to be decided on the evidence? How can the blanket imposition of conditions on picketing miners, who may face only minor charges, be reconciled with the granting of


unconditional bail to persons charged with serious offences? Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman ask the Lord Chancellor to inquire into the working of the Bail Act in mining areas over the past few weeks?

The Attorney-General: I have no evidence to show that magistrates are not dealing with each application for bail on its merits and individually. It does not matter what is printed on the form. It may be for convenience, in case those are the conditions that are imposed. It is a matter for the judgment of magistrates when dealing with applications. I have no evidence that magistrates are approaching this matter in the wrong way.

Oral Answers to Questions — OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

Africa (Aid)

Mr. Barnett: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will increase the present level of British bilateral aid to agriculture in Africa.

The Minister for Overseas Development (Mr. Timothy Raison): Our bilateral aid is allocated on a country basis and not by economic sector, but I attach much importance to the development of agriculture in Africa and I am very ready to approve worthwhile proposals for aid for this purpose.

Mr. Barnett: I am grateful to the Minister for his reassurance of his commitment to agriculture in subtropical Africa. Will he bear in mind that the figures that he recently gave me show that since 1980 there has been a drop of about one third in aid to agriculture in tropical Africa, and that the current figure of aid for agricultural projects in tropical Africa is a paltry £15 million? I cannot believe that that is in line with the right hon. Gentleman's order of priorities. Can he give the House an assurance that commitments for the future mean that that decline will be reversed and that the aid that Britain is giving bilaterally to agriculture in Africa will increase?

Mr. Raison: The figures to which the hon. Gentleman refers are about project aid, and that is only part of the picture. Increasingly, aid today embraces programme and sector aid, which is not possible to allocate in this way. Project aid in other sectors, such as roads, can greatly benefit agriculture. I remain committed to the belief that the development of agriculture in Africa is of high priority.

Mr. Budgen: Before my right hon. Friend gives away more of the taxpayers' money to African countries, will he please have a word with the EEC Commission and remind it that dumping agricultural produce in Africa, such as maize in Tanzania, may deal with a short-term problem, but that in the long term it will create much greater difficulties?

Mr. Raison: The European Commission is aware of our views about food aid and our belief that it should not be used indiscriminately. It is fair to say that Commissioner Pisani has accepted this view and has supported us in our efforts.

Joint Funding Scheme

Mr. Maples: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the future level of financial support for the joint funding scheme.

Mr. Chapman: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps he is taking to support and encourage voluntary agencies in the field of overseas development.

Mr. Raison: Subject to parliamentary approval, I propose to set aside £4·8 million in 1985–86 for the joint funding scheme, which enables us to finance half the costs of certain development projects undertaken by British voluntary agencies. This will represent an increase of one third on this year's revised allocation of £3·59 million and a doubling of the allocation in 1983–84.

Mr. Maples: That is a welcome statement, although the sum involved is only a relatively small proportion of the total aid budget. Does my right hon. Friend agree that aid given through voluntary bodies is not only cheaper but quicker? Does he think that there is scope for utilising more of the aid budget in that way?

Mr. Raison: I agree that aid given through the voluntary sector has many advantages, not least that it can reach the poorest people directly. I shall certainly be thinking positively about our future allocations to the voluntary sector.

Mr. Chapman: I also welcome my right hon. Friend's statement. Does he agree that the track record of voluntary agencies shows that generally they are able to get aid to the poorest and most needy people, particularly in emergencies? For that reason, if for no other, will my right hon. Friend accept the welcome of his hon. Friends for what he said?

Mr. Raison: I accept the welcome of both my hon. Friends. I agree with what my hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Mr. Chapman) has just said about the voluntary agencies. However, the joint funding scheme is not about emergency aid; it is about the longer-term development programmes. But it is important.

Mr. Stuart Holland: While paying tribute to the work of voluntary agencies in the Third world, not least in the Sahel area and in Central America, may I make it clear that a recent reply by the Minister shows that net overseas development assistance has fallen to 0·35 per cent. of GDP, which is only one half the United Nations' target and is exceeded by virtually every other country in western Europe? Will the right hon. Gentleman commit himself to a major increase in aid to voluntary agencies and in the overall overseas development aid programme? If not, will he admit that his record so far has been that of a Minister for underdevelopment rather than that of a Minister serving the interests of developing countries?

Mr. Raison: The hon. Gentleman's supplementary question was almost wholly irrelevant to the question on the Order Paper. Our record on the voluntary sector has been extremely good, and I intend to maintain it.

Aid Distribution

Mr. Proctor: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations


he has received to ensure that funds for overseas development are given to individuals rather than organisations; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Raison: I am not aware of any representations having been made on directing aid funds towards individuals rather than organisations. All aid is given with the ultimate intention of benefiting individuals, but is normally channelled through appropriate organisations, for the most part Governments or multilateral institutions.

Mr. Proctor: Does my right hon. Friend accept that one of the virtues missing from some of the countries which are the targets of overseas aid is capitalism? What is my right hon. Friend's Department doing to spread individual entrepreneurial skills to promote capitalism in those countries?

Mr. Raison: I very much agree with what my hon. Friend said. I believe that it is important that private enterprise in this country should play its part in promoting development overseas, which it can do by investment, and that the private sector in developing countries has a great deal to contribute to the success of those countries.

Mr. Mark Robinson: Does my right hon. Friend agree that both multilateral and voluntary organisations can be extremely effective in the administration of aid?

Mr. Raison: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend, who I know has considerable experience in this area.

Africa

Mr. Bowen Wells: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps he is taking to assist Africa to offset the effects of world recession and drought.

Mr. Janner: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will institute a fund for the African Commonwealth countries suffering from drought.

Mr. Raison: We are continuing to provide drought-related assistance on the substantial scale maintained in the last financial year. New machinery would not in itself increase the generous proportion of our aid already directed at African Commonwealth countries.

Mr. Wells: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Does he agree that the real answer to drought and recession in Africa is not to chuck money at the problem, in the form of food aid or disaster relief, but to promote projects which deal with the problems of agriculture at times of drought? We need more research into drought conditions and more projects designed to cope with those conditions, such as water conservation projects. We should also provide foreign exchange, possibly through the aid budget, to enable agricultural projects to fund the extra money needed from foreign exchange sources to enable them to continue.

Mr. Raison: I agree with my hon. Friend that this is very much a development rather than a short-term emergency matter. However, we have to do what we can to meet the immediate crises, and I think that we have made a good contribution in that respect, too.

Mr. Janner: I suggest that in the past our contribution to drought relief has been insufficient, and that it will be even less sufficient next year as the drought continues to make life miserable and death near to so many people in Africa, including those in Zambia, Zimbabwe and Kenya, which I recently visited. Will the Minister, on behalf of the British people, make a generous gesture to those who are in such misery as a result of the drought?

Mr. Raison: I accept that there is a grave problem in Africa, but we have not done badly. Our commitment in the past financial year totalled £24 million. So far this year we have committed £13 million, and we will, of course, continue to watch the matter very carefully.

Mr. Deakins: Does the Minister recognise that the rapidly rising populations in Africa also contribute to the damage done by the drought and the world recession? Will he bend his mind to trying to increase our contribution to population programmes in countries which are also suffering from those disadvantages?

Mr. Raison: Population is a very important aspect of the problem. The World Bank has just published an important report on the matter, and we shall play our part at the conference in Mexico in August. I accept that population measures should play a significant part in our aid programme.

Water Supplies

Mr. Rob Hayward: (by private notice) asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the rapidly deteriorating water supplies.

The Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr. Ian Gow): Over the past three months rainfall in the United Kingdom has been substantially below average and in some parts, notably Wales and the south-west, it has been less than half the normal amount. Reservoirs in Wales, the south-west and Cumbria are low, and the 30-day forecast is for warm, dry weather in all parts of the country.
Since the drought of 1976, water resources have been augmented in many places and distribution systems improved, but demand has risen—in particular, the peak summer demand.
To conserve supplies in the areas of shortage water authorities have prohibited the use of hosepipes, and these bans now affect some 9 million people. The Government have also made 18 orders under the Drought Act 1976, authorising water authorities and companies to augment supplies by reducing river levels. During a meeting with the chairman of the South West water authority on 23 May I confirmed that the Government expected water authorities to take early action to safeguard supplies. This advice was repeated to all water authorities on 6 June so as to avert the need for more drastic steps later on, such as rota cuts or supplies only from standpipes.
We shall as necessary make orders authorising water authorities and companies to prohibit other inessential uses of water. My Department will keep in close touch with all water authorities and companies, and I am asking those bodies to report to me on a weekly basis.
I urge everyone to use water responsibly. The water authorities and companies are best able to judge what economies are needed in their areas. I stress how important it is to comply with their advice and with the terms of any statutory limitions in force from time to time.

Mr. Hayward: Is my right hon. Friend satisfied with the advice that he has been given, in the light of the fact that on 1 May this year I was told in a written parliamentary answer that water supplies were
in good shape except for some small reservoirs in the northwest".—[Official Report, 1 May 1984; Vol. 59, c. 112.]
and yet restrictions now apply to 9 million people?
If orders are to be made under the 1976 Act, will the cuts be applied first to industries, or to individual consumers?

Mr. Gow: I have looked at the question to which my hon. Friend referred. The truth is there has been no rain since 1 May and that makes a difference.
It is the policy of the Government, the water authorities and the water companies that priority should be given to keeping supplies open to industry, and of course to agriculture. If it is necessary to impose further restrictions, I believe that the House and the country will think it right that the inessential use of water should be restricted.

Dr. John Cunningham: The Minister might be aware that the Opposition will neither blame him nor give him credit for the fine weather. The fact remains

that 9 million people are now subject to some form of restriction in the use of water and, for many of them, water rationing cannot be far away.
Although the Government are not responsible for the weather, they are responsible for the financing and organisation of the water industry. How much longer must we tell people in the south-west, the north-west and Wales —it is always the same areas—that they must suffer such restrictions? Why is there poor planning in the water industry, Government cuts in development plans for water supply and imposition of external financing limits by the Government on the water industry in the face of so much evidence that the contrary should be the case? Much more investment is needed in the water supply industry.
Should not the Government consider the development of a national water grid? How did the Water Act 1982 help, as it barred the press and the public from consideration of these issues, deprived consumers of a proper role in the planning of the industry and discussion of its problems and abolished the Water Council?

Mr. Gow: I am grateful for what the hon. Gentleman said at the beginning of his question. It was the view of the Labour Government, and it is certainly the view of the present Government, that the capital expenditure required for a national water grid could not possibly be justified.

Mr. Denis Howell: indicated dissent.

Mr. Gow: I am giving the Government's view. If the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell), who is muttering from a sedentary position, says that he favoured a national water grid, he should remember that he was not able to implement one when he was at the Department of the Environment.
With regard to the reforms resulting from the Water Acts of 1973 and 1983, both of which were passed by Conservative Governments, we now have much more streamlined water authorities, which I believe are far better able to cope than was possible under the previous arrangements. I believe that the exclusion of the press from meetings of water auhorities was a wise move which has improved the administration of the water industry.

Mr. Robert Hicks: Is my hon. Friend aware that reservoir levels in Devon and Cornwall are already significantly lower than they were in June 1976? Will he confirm that more than 24 per cent. of Britain's potential water supply is lost between the reservoir and the user? Does he agree that that points to the need for a major investment programme to update our out-of-date infrastructure in this respect?

Mr. Gow: Yes, but I must remind my hon. Friend that investment in the water industry, as elsewhere, must be conducted within the necessary restraints on public expenditure. We believe that we are better placed today than we were in 1976 to deal with the serious problem that exists in the area that my hon. Friend represents.

Mr. Simon Hughes: I am forced to observe that if the result of streamlining the water industry is our continuing to have times during which there is no water, the result of streamlining the cities might well be no services. Is the Minister willing to instruct his officials to come up with a costed and public


proposal to see whether a national water grid should be a matter for Government policy, to be implemented as soon as possible, rather than merely to say no to the idea?

Mr. Gow: I have already said that the cost of a national grid would not be justified.

Sir Hugh Rossi: In past years the lowering of water levels in rivers has led to an increase in the concentration of nitrates in the water supply in the Thames and Lea valleys to an extent considered unacceptable by the World Health Organisation. Can my hon. Friend assure me that there are measures in hand to prevent that sort of danger from arising?

Mr. Gow: I give my hon. Friend the assurance for which he asks.

Mr. Dafydd Wigley: Is the Minister aware that water rate payers in Wales are sick and tired of paying through their noses for water and finding that water supplies are not available? Is he further aware that for weeks there have been restrictions on water usage in Wales, whereas cities which get their water from reservoirs in Wales have not suffered the same restrictions? Is it right that the Welsh water authority has asked for even more draconian powers to cut water supplies in Wales?

Mr. Gow: I should not use the word "draconian". I have no responsibility for Wales, but my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Wales, the hon. Member for Conway (Mr. Roberts), is sitting next to me and I know that he will write to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Stefan Terlezki: I come from a part of the United Kingdom from which, as the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) said, water is pumped. As he also said, the Welsh people are sick and tired of being told after a few weeks of dry weather that they must not use any water. Does my hon. Friend accept that it is high time the Government reviewed the issue and, if need be, invested more capital in the water industry?

Mr. Gow: My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Wales will be writing also to my hon. Friend.

Mr. Denis Howell: Is the Minister aware that he has been misinformed and wrongly advised? The great lesson of the 1976 drought was that we should have a water grid to which each of the 11 authorities would be linked. There is no shortage of water even now, but difficulties have arisen because we are not transferring water from north to south and from west to east, which could be done by using the rivers. The previous Labour Government decided that capital works to provide that type of grid should be undertaken, and much work was done in preparing such a scheme. That work was in hand when the Labour Government went out of office. Why is it that our people are suffering deprivation only three months after we were told that there was no water shortage? Will the Minister consider the establishment of a system of water transfers from areas of plenty to areas of shortage?

Mr. Gow: I shall listen carefully to the right hon. Gentleman's advice. However, the Government have no plans to construct a national water grid.

Mr. Peter Rost: Does my hon. Friend accept that there would be no water shortage, despite the drought, if water were not lost between the reservoir and

the consumer? Is it not time to review the water authorities' investment programme? Much of the investment would be highly cost-effective, as the processing and cleaning of the water that is being wasted has been paid for.

Mr. Gow: My hon. Friend is right, because there is a loss of water from the reservoir to the consumer. It is to that problem that a significant part of the investment in the water industry in recent years has been devoted. There is scope for further improvement.

Mr. Ron Davies: Is the Minister aware that the feeling of anger is especially bitter in Wales following the promise after the 1976 drought that there would never be shortages again? How can he justify the present shortage, when water is being sold by the Welsh water authority to the Severn-Trent authority? We have been promised increased water rate bills next year and we are not even getting the water that we have paid for this year. At what stage in the drought will the Minister consider introducing a rebate for those who have been deprived of water for the past six weeks or so, and who face a long and dry summer?

Mr. Gow: As the hon. Gentleman knows, where a hosepipe is charged for separately by an authority or company and a ban is imposed, the authority or the company is required to give a reasonable rebate.
I shall refer the hon. Gentleman's question on the wider issue to my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales.

Mr. Gerrard Neale: Is my hon. Friend aware that in the west country there were two months prior to 1 April during which there was a dramatic drop in the rainfall, and that anyone locally could have told him that even the slighest drought would have induced the problems that we are now seeing?
Will my right hon. Friend comment on reports that the South West water authority is to acquire water from the north-east, perhaps in substitution for those tanker ships taking it out to the middle east?

Mr. Gow: With regard to the possibility of the South-West water authority buying water from the Northumbrian water authority, my hon. Friend may know that the Northumbrian water authority has indeed entered into a contract to sell water to Gibraltar. It would be possible, if the South West water authority decided to do so, for a similar purchase to be made by that authority from Northumbria, but that is a matter for the chairman of the South West water authority to consider.

Mr. Tom Cox: Is the Minister aware that an increasing source of complaint is the standing charge that water consumers pay? When hon. Members take up the question with chairmen of water authorities, they are always told that the purpose of the standing charge is to improve supplies and general services. When will that money be used to provide the services about which many hon. Members on both sides of the House are complaining?

Mr. Gow: If the standing charges were abolished, the price of water would have to be increased.

Mr. Roger King: What advice is my hon. Friend giving local authorities about fire hazards, which are obviously inherent in a long period of drought?

Mr. Gow: My hon. Friend is right to suggest that there is an increased risk of fire. The Forestry Commission and the fire authorities—the county councils—will continue to give such advice as is appropriate, as will the Central Office of Information.

Mr. John Cartwright: As the Minister has confirmed that one water authority is exporting water while others are in desperate need, will he consider the possibility of sending emergency supplies from areas of surplus to areas of need? If he will not embrace the idea of a water grid, will he at least put pressure behind the idea of an emergency attack on the problem?

Mr. Gow: As I said earlier, I am in the closest touch with the water authorities, and the hon. Gentleman's suggestion will be considered.

Mr. David Harris: Is not the lesson to be learnt from the unhappy experience of the past few weeks, particularly in the south-west, that there must be more expenditure on basic infrastructure? I accept the difficulty in regard to public expenditure. If necessary, there should be a reduction in discretionary regional grants to pay for it.

Mr. Gow: I have said that investment in the water industry will have to be governed by the truth, which seems to be forgotten by the Labour party, that the resources available for public investment are not unlimited.

Mrs. Ann Clwyd: Is the chairman of the Welsh water authority right, or wrong, when he says that the situation would not have occurred had the authority been allowed capital spending, and were it not for Government cuts? Is it right that half the water of Wales should be exported to authorities where there is no water shortage, when Wales is suffering from a drought? What will the Minister do about water equalisation rates? He has not given a straight answer to that question.

Mr. Gow: I have not seen the remarks which the hon. Lady attributes to the chairman of the Welsh water

authority, but I shall draw her question to the attention of my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales, who will write to her.

Mr. Richard Tracey: Will my hon. Friend completely discount the idea of a national grid? Will he consider the use of canals—many of which are falling into disuse—as channels?

Mr. Gow: I shall consider my hon. Friend's suggestion.

Mr. Toby Jessel: Has my hon. Friend any information on whether British people are having more baths, as contrasted with people in other countries, where there is increasing use of showers, which require less water?

Mr. Gow: I do not have the statistics to which my hon. Friend refers. Should I be able to unearth them, I shall send them to him.

Mr. Barry Jones: In south Wales the drought conditions have become more severe than those of 1976. Does the Minister appreciate that, had the Wye-Usk transfer scheme been in operation this summer, with its capacity of 15 million gallons per day, the increasing gravity of the water shortage would have been greatly reduced? Why did the Government not provide sufficient funds for the vital Wye-Usk scheme, which was planned long ago and sanctioned by the previous Labour Government? South Wales faces a period in which intense and damaging pressure will be put on the tourist, agriculture and manufacturing industries. A more determined and generous Government would have prevented that.

Mr. Gow: The hon. Gentleman falls into the same trap as that of his hon. Friends. He believes that it is possible to spend unlimited sums of money in the public sector, when the truth is that that is not possible.
My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary tells me that the Wye pumping station has been put into operation and that 4 million gallons of water a day are being transferred to Court Farm treatment works, serving British Steel at Llanwern and part of the Newport area.

Mr. Umaru Dikko (Abduction)

The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Sir Geoffrey Howe): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a statement about the abduction of Mr. Umaru Dikko, which will bring the House up to date on developments since the statement by my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary in the House on Friday. Police and other inquiries are continuing. I will make a further statement to the House later this week.
As the House will know, a British Caledonian aircraft with its crew and passengers was unlawfully detained by the Nigerian authorities in Lagos from 5 to 7 July. We protested strongly to the Nigerian authorities both in London and in Lagos at this totally unjustified and unlawful act. Subsequently we have made a further strong protest about the conditions under which the passengers were held at Lagos airport. The plane was released at 1400 local time on Saturday 7 July and arrived back in the United Kingdom at about 4.30 on Sunday morning.
I understand that air services between the United Kingdom and Nigeria are now functioning normally.
Meanwhile, the police are continuing their inquiries into the abduction of Mr. Dikko and the attempts to smuggle people out of the country. I am advised that these have made some progress but that they are not yet complete, not least because it has only just become possible for the police to start questioning Mr. Dikko. I understand that some criminal charges are likely to be brought quite soon.
I appreciate, of course, that the House wishes to have the fullest and earliest possible information on these aspects, but it is important that any decisions that have to be taken should be based on the fullest available information and should not interfere with or prejudice police inquiries. That is why neither I nor my right hon. and learned Friend can make a definitive statement on these aspects today and why I may have to decline to answer fully some of the questions which may arise.
Nevertheless, it is already clear that if the police are to be able to complete their inquiries satisfactorily they will need to interview members of the Nigerian high commission staff. This need arises from the presence at Stansted airport on 5 July of at least one member of the Nigerian high commission staff and vehicles from that high commission. The Nigerian high commissioner has, accordingly, today been asked specifically to allow the police to carry out the necessary interviews, and told that we require a very early reply to this request.
As the House will know, it is the duty of all persons enjoying privileges and immunities in accordance with the Vienna convention to respect the laws and regulations of their host country. It is plain that the commission of acts of violence on British territory and the plotting of the abduction of a person from the United Kingdom is a matter of the gravest concern. Not least in view of the good relations which have traditionally existed between Nigeria and the United Kingdom, I am sure that the House will join me in looking for an early and positive response from the Nigerian high commissioner. As I have already made clear, the Government will keep the House fully informed of further developments.

Mr. George Robertson: We appreciate that police inquiries are still going on into this outrageous kidnapping and that the final position of the Government must await the police conclusions. We in the Opposition associate ourselves with the widespread praise for the outstanding police and customs operation during this incident. However, given what is already known about the incident, why is not possible to make our general position quite clear here and now? Why are we still pussy-footing around the issue? In May, after the Libyan siege, the Foreign Secretary said:
We shall be ready to use this power"—
the power of expulsion—
as an exemplary measure against any mission that the Government have good reason to believe is responsible for unacceptable activities in this country."— [Official Report, 1 May 1984; Vol. 59 c. 212.]
Will the Foreign Secretary ensure that his strong words in May are followed by appropriately strong action in July? Will he tell the House that if any diplomat is found to have been implicated in this crime he or she will either face trial, or, if immunity is not waived to allow it, he or she will be expelled forthwith? Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware of the considerable concern in this country, given the fact that London has a number of foreign exiles, many of whom are accused of crimes, both real and imaginary, back home, and that all of them would be at risk if this sort of violent, illegal repatriation were to be in any way legitimised?
Can the House be assured that, whatever the letter of the Vienna convention, if British officials suspect that human beings are in properly or improperly labelled diplomatic baggage, unilateral action will be taken by this country to open it? Might this not be an area for an initiative in the Commonwealth, to eradicate the possible abuses of diplomatic baggage?
Although we are close and long-standing trading and Commonwealth partners of Nigeria, and very much want it to remain that way, we must make it crystal clear that the British people will not tolerate the importation of any official or quasi-official terrorism and crime on to our streets.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for underlining the extent to which Her Majesty's Government and, from what has been said already, hon. Members in alt parts of the House condemn actions of the sort of which the hon. Gentleman has complained. One of our purposes must be to take steps to try, so far as is humanly possible, to keep such action off the streets of this country, and, indeed, out of the country altogether. There is no question of the Government, as the hon. Gentleman put it, pussy-footing around the matter. It is right for us to take the steps that I described to make the matter quite clear. I agree that the chances of a trial taking place depend entirely on whether immunity is waived, but it was right for me to make the request that I made of the Nigerian high commissioner for co-operation along the lines that I described.
The hon. Gentleman also made an important point about the change that will take place if there is evidence that a human life is endangered by the purported use of diplomatic bags or baggage. That matter was regarded as of the utmost importance on Friday, and will always be so regarded in any similar case. The hon. Gentleman knows that we have taken steps to raise the measures which we propose for consideration both at the London economic


summit and in the European Community. Also, my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary was at the meeting of Ministers from the Council of Europe. The hon. Gentleman made the important additional suggestion that we should canvass the matter among Commonwealth Governments. I shall bear that firmly in mind.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The House will have heard the Foreign Secretary say that he will make a further statement later this week. I have to take into account the fact that this is an important Back Benchers' day, so I propose to allow questions on the statement to continue until 4.15. I shall give preference to hon. Members who were not called on Friday.

Mr. Julian Amery: Will my right hon. and learned Friend make it clear to the Nigerian authorities that, while normal requests for extradition will be processed by our courts in the ordinary way, public opinion in this country will not stand for extradition to a Government who have sought to take the law into their own hands in this way?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for raising that point. As he will appreciate, such matters between Commonwealth Governments are considered under the Fugitive Offenders Act 1967. No request under that Act has been received in respect of Mr. Dikko, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary told the House on Friday. If any such request were to be received, it would be transmitted to my right hon. and learned Friend and dealt with in accordance with the provisions of the Act. Those provisions take some account of the important points raised by my right hon. Friend.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: What does the Foreign Office think would be the position in law if diplomatic immunity were not waived by a high commission or embassy about questioning or charging one of its staff?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: The questioning of staff does not require a formal waiver of diplomatic immunity. It simply requires a positive response to the request that I have made. The matter of diplomatic immunity can, of course, be raised, for example, in answer to a would-be arrest taking place. As was made plain on Friday, we would look to the Government of a friendly country to respond positively and favourable to such action. If they did not respond positively and favourably, that would influence our view of the matter.

Mr. Peter Hordern: If the Nigerian authorities do not accept that they should have responsibility for those who have carried out this crime, what further measures will my right hon. Friend implement? Does he accept that there can be no question of diplomatic niceties being allowed to stand in the way of bringing to justice those who have carried out these outrages?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: There is no question in this or in any other case of diplomatic niceties standing in the way of whatever firm action is necessary. It is right and appropriate at this stage for the Government to have taken

the steps that we have taken in inviting the Nigerian high commission to enable the police authorities to make the inquiries necessary to clarify the facts before we come to a final decision. I repeat: our position at the end of the day must take account of the matters on which I reported to the House on 25 May.

Mr. Alex Carlile: Has the right hon. and learned Gentleman taken the opportunity of consulting the Secretary-General of the Commonwealth, in an effort to resolve the difficulties between the United Kingdom and Nigeria through impartial and international channels. In considering the relationships between Britain and Nigeria, will the right hon. and learned Gentleman bear in mind Mr. Paterson and Mr. Clark, two British gentlemen who have been held in custody without charge in Nigeria for about a month in circumstances which are allegedly concerned with fugitive Nigerian politicians?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I shall certainly bear in mind the importance of the hon. and learned Gentleman's last point, which has been a matter of consideration and representation. There are many ways in which, and many areas about which, I am delighted to consult the Secretary General of the Commonwealth to seek his help and advice. This matter must be regarded as one that arises directly between our two Governments, and that is why we have made the strongest possible representations to the Nigerian Government.

Sir Philip Goodhart: In making up his mind about what to do, will my right hon. and learned Friend bear in mind that too many members of the Nigerian high commission staff have a poor record, stretching back over many years, of flouting British laws and conventions?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: That is certainly one matter that I shall bear in mind. I am certain that it would be right to concentrate on the facts arising in connection with this case.

Mr. David Young: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman take on board the fact that many of us would defend the right of diplomatic immunity where it is used for the legitimate purposes of an embassy but that another situation arises where diplomatic immunity is used to impinge on the laws of this country? We should make it clear to all embassies, whether within the Commonwealth or without, that the laws of this country must not be impinged on by diplomats who choose to use diplomatic immunity as a justification for carrying their national fights on to the streets of London.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I cannot emphasise too strongly the extent to which I agree with every word said by the hon. Gentleman. It should be emphasised that no one is more affronted by abuses of diplomatic immunity than those diplomats, including our own, who rely upon that immunity for the proper conduct of their affairs and business. A grave matter arises when events take place which represent a violation or disregard of article 41 of the Vienna convention, which states that it is the duty of all persons enjoying privileges and immunities under that convention to respect the laws and regulations of the receiving state. That is a plain statement of duty and of the highest importance.

Mr. Ian Lloyd: Because my right hon. and learned Friend is more aware than most of the fact that


Nigeria is prominent in international forums such as the United Nations and the Commonwealth in setting standards for others and condemning them for standards that are not observed, will he take this opportunity of pointing out that the maintenance of high standards of diplomatic behaviour is the very lintel of the Scaean arch of civilisation, and that countries which do not observe those standards have no right to condemn others?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: It is important for my hon. Friend's point to be made clear, and I am glad to do so.

Mr. Alfred Dubs: Are the Nigerian Government still saying to the British Government that the kidnapping had nothing to do with Nigerian people—the Nigerian high commission or any of its officials? If so, what reasons are the Nigerians giving for holding the airliner last week?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: It is right to say, as the hon. Gentleman pointed out, that the Nigerian Government have publicly denied, and continue to deny, any involvement in the affair. No varied or sufficient reason has been given or exists for the holding of that aircraft.

Mr. Cranley Onslow: Has my right hon. and learned Friend impressed upon the Nigerian Government how important it is, in the interests of longer-term Anglo-Nigerian relations, that no action of any kind is taken by the Nigerians which might be interpreted as totally unjustifiable intimidation of or retaliation against this country?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: That point has already been made plain in the context of the detention of the British Caledonian airliner. I agree with my hon. Friend that that should be underlined, and I shall do so.

Mr. David Winnick: There can be no possible excuse for the kind of gangsterism that occurred last week. Recognising the long and honourable tradition of political asylum, which I hope will always continue, is there not a distinction to be made between those who have genuine political reasons to seek asylum and others who may well have been, as in this case, involved in the worst form of state corruption? Will the Foreign Secretary find out from the Home Secretary the basis on which Mr. Dikko was in this country, and for how long he will continue to be here?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I understand that Mr. Dikko was here, and is still here, as a visitor. Political asylum and the rights of others to come to and remain in this country are of great importance. As the right hon. Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) said in a broadcast today, this is not a matter in which one should make changes lightly or without consideration. Clearly, there are important and difficult questions to be considered.

Mr. Bowen Wells: Will my right hon. and learned Friend make clear to the Nigerians our great disappointment that this action should occur between the two Commonwealth countries and that, although we understand that this behaviour might have happened with Governments of countries such as Libya and Bulgaria, major concern arises when it happens within the Commonwealth? Will my right hon. and learned Friend consider asking all diplomats to submit curriculum vitae before they are accepted with diplomatic status in high commissions and embassies in this country?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I shall certainly consider my hon. Friend's point, but I suspect that, the world being what it is, it may not make a decisive difference to this important problem. I agree with my hon. Friend that the whole House will regret the fact that this type of incident has arisen in the context of long-standing good relationships.

Mr. John Ryman: Does not this outrage illustrate the need to review the Fugitive Offenders Act 1967, because a request for extradition by the Nigerian Government would be futile if it were to be defeated by a claim that the offence was a political one committed in Nigeria? Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman not consider that the time is right to review urgently the laws relating to extradition?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: If I remember correctly, the Fugitive Offenders Act was passed in its present form as recently as 1967. It was then the subject of close consideration by the House in the light of earlier cases which had caused the House and the country some anxiety. I agree that the Fugitive Offenders Act and the Extradition Acts deserve to be scrutinised carefully in the light of changing circumstances. They are kept under constant review, but the points raised by the hon. Gentleman w ill have been noted by my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary.

Mr. David Crouch: When considering the Government's approach to the Nigerian Government, will my right hon. and learned Friend bear in mind that problems have arisen in the past between ourselves and the Nigerian Government over assassinations, military takeovers and even a civil war in that country? Even now, with the demise of democracy in that country and a return to military rule, will my right hon. and learned Friend bear in mind the long-standing good will which exists between our two peoples?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: That point was made in the exchanges in the House on Friday, and has been rightly raised by my hon. Friend again today. It is of course a matter of which we take full account. It is, as I said in my statement, an additional reason why we look for an early and positive response to the request that I have made to the Nigerian high commission.

Mr. Kenneth Warren: Has my right hon. and learned Friend asked the Israeli Government for information about their citizens who were involved, bearing in mind that those men were of military age and that their full records would be available? Secondly, would he like to give the Israeli Government an opportunity to assure the world and the House that there is no collusion between Israel and Nigeria in this kidnapping?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I do not know the extent of any inquiries that may be made by the police, but there is no evidence of Israeli Government involvement in this, matter.

Mr. Jerry Hayes: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that it is about time that the Foreign Office got its act together and dealt a swift and exemplary blow to the Nigerian Government, whose guilt in this matter is absolutely clear, to make it clear that the vast majority of people do not accept having our streets used as some form of battleground for the settling of foreign vendettas?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: There is no doubt that the House and the nation condemn the use of our streets as a battleground for the vendettas of foreign nations, but I must reject the implication of my hon. Friend's question that this extremely difficult problem affecting our relations with an important Commonwealth country, arising out of the serious offence committed within this country, will be resolved by the Foreign Office "getting its act together". If it were as easy as that we should not be troubling the House today. I assure my hon. Friend and the House that the matter will be given the fullest and most proper consideration in the light of the important points that have been made.

Mr. Tony Banks: The Foreign Secretary has told us that Mr. Dikko is here as a visitor. Will he amplify that statement and give us some more background information as to who took the decision and whether he or anyone from the Home Office knew about Mr. Dikko coming as a visitor? Secondly, what conditions were applied to Mr. Dikko's stay here?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: The decision would have been taken by the immigration officer dealing with him at his last point of entry. There will have been more than one entry since the change of Government in Nigeria at the end of last year. The conditions would be the same as those attached to any other visitor entering under those circumstances.

Mr. Tony Banks: Six months?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I think that it is six months.

Mr. Anthony Beaumont-Dark: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that, much as the whole House condemns this kind of behaviour, one of the matters that must be sorted out is that any country should properly be a home for political refugees? But does my right hon. and learned Friend further agree that we must devise a system whereby this and other civilised countries are not a home for those who use political refugeeship as a cover for fraudulent behaviour? If that happens, all these systems lose their credibility.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: Anyone who is guilty of fraud in this country will be open to the ordinary criminal law, but, going beyond that, my hon. Friend has raised an important point. There are enormous difficulties in the way of finding a fresh approach.

Mr. Ivan Lawrence: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that the people feel some apprehension that if the Nigerian regime were found to be offending in this matter not much would happen? Is he further aware that if not much happens that might very well provide a temptation to other regimes throughout the world

to use, or to continue using, British streets for kidnapping and assassination, and that that would be contrary to the wishes of the British people?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I understand the point raised by my hon. and learned Friend. Before we reach any conclusion about this case, it is undoubtedly right for us to take the steps necessary to establish the facts. We shall approach the matter in the light of the considerations which I outlined to the House in my statement earlier this year.

Mr. Richard Holt: Does my right hon. and learned Friend accept that the Nigerians possibly took their action as a result of the lead given by the Libyans? Even to this day British subjects are incarcerated without trial in that country. It gave the Nigerians the idea of how they could hold this country to ransom, and that is completely unacceptable.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I cannot say what may have prompted the action taken in this case. In his question, my hon. Friend goes beyond the facts so far established. Of course I and the whole House regret the action being taken by the Libyan Government in detaining British citizens without charge. We are continuing to make the strongest possible representations to them through our protecting power in that country.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I shall bear in mind those hon. Members who have not been called today when the next statement is made and give them preference.

Statutory Instruments, &c.

Mr. Speaker: By leave of the House, I shall put together the Questions on the two motions relating to draft statutory instruments.

Ordered,
That the draft Industrial Training Levy (Engineering Board) Order 1984 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.
That the Home Insulation Grants Order 1984 (S.I., 1984, No. 838) be referred to a Standintg Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.—[Mr. Neubert.]

York Minster

Mr. K. Harvey Proctor: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Will you advise me and the House whether it will be possible to have a statement in the House about the tragic fire at York minster and the proposals to refurbish York minster to its former glory at an early opportunity?

Mr. Speaker: That is a matter entirely for the Minister involved, and I have received no notification about it.

Sport and Recreation

Mr. David Ashby: I beg to move,
That this House, whilst recognising the contribution of Her Majesty's Government to both international and national sport, nevertheless considers that greater priority should be given to encouraging people of all ages to participate in sport, recognising and promoting excellence in sport, and co-ordinating the efforts of the various governing bodies of sports; and further considers that in recognising the value of a fit and healthy nation, Her Majesty's Government should actively encourage offices, businesses and factories to include sports facilities and the use of those facilities in the work place.
In choosing the subject of sport and recreation as my subject for the debate this afternoon, I was moved by a number of considerations, not the least being the importance of the subject and the fact that the House has not debated sport since the debate on the White Paper on "Sport and Recreation" on 6 April 1977.
When we pause to consider that every newspaper carries several pages daily on sport; that the television and radio have several hours of sport coverage weekly; that few people do not take an interest in some sport; that even fewer do not have a sporting hero; and that more and more people have increased leisure hours which are either enforced through unemployment or gained through efficiency and higher technology, we realise the importance of sport and the need to debate the subject more than once every seven years.
It is not just this Government and successive Governments who have paid insufficient regard to sport. The House has neglected this major interest of vast numbers of people. Sport is part of the national heritage and culture. We are the nation who gave the world the three major team sports of cricket, football and rugby. When our sporting representatives are successful, the whole country shares in their success, our national morale is uplifted, our world standing improves, and even our businesses feel the benefit. Even the House will feel the benefit of it in future. My hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, East (Mr. Moynihan) carries the best wishes of the House with him as he goes to the Olympic games in Los Angeles at the end of the month. The House is proud of him and of all British teams, and we wish them every success.
Many hon. Members will recall our pride when England won the World cup in 1966 or, more recently and closer to my constituency, at the success of Torvill and Dean in the ice-dancing championships this year, or the way in which Ian Botham almost single handedly won the Ashes in 1981.
The benefits of participation in sport are numerous. It brings much needed exercise, which medical research has shown to be essential for a long and healthy life. It encourages competitiveness and achievement, which are necessary for a healthy nation. There has been a phenomenal growth of interest in sport. The House will be pleased to hear that active participation in sport has doubled since 1973.
The statistics for the major sports sound impressive. There are 1,947 clubs that play rugby union, and it is estimated that about 500,000 people participate. In England alone 20,000 cricket clubs play amateur cricket. The Amateur Swimming Association estimates that 300,000 people swim competitively and almost 9 million

people swim for fun. There are 2·75 million people who play football at all levels for a registered amateur club, about 40,000 clubs and 92 football league clubs. There are 1,300 athletic clubs with untold numbers of participants. The London marathon attracted 16,992 starters. There are 1,319 men's golf clubs with 490,000 registered members, and 1,165 women's clubs with 91,000 registered members. It looks as though women have a better chance than men of getting on the greens.
Those figures sound impressive until one examines them and becomes aware of two factors. First, those actively involved in sport amount to between 10 and 15 per cent. of the population, of which the lower figure probably represents those who participate regularly. Secondly, there is an imbalance between male and female participation.
We must look first to schools to enthuse children with the desire to participate in sport. Equally it is in schools that individual sporting talents will first surface. I am under the impression that sports education has suffered in the same way as general academic education has. Too often teachers fail to stretch their pupils to achieve their best, and where talent exists it is neither spotted nor nurtured. Schools must bring sporting activities to everyone, but we must ensure that that is not done at the expense of talented individuals. Sadly, many schools make no effort in the pursuit of excellence and as the physical education curriculum expands, standards tend to drop.
It is surprising that the Department of Education and Science has no strategy for sport in schools and no general policy. It is left to individual local education authorities. The Department of Education and Science should have a policy on sport and it should make a thorough reappraisal of sports education, which should include giving greater priority to sport in schools, because our youth is consistently under-achieving.
There should be greater co-operation and co-ordination between schools and sports clubs, and schools and centres of excellence so that enthusiastic children who have developed a love of sport may continue to participate after they have left school and so that talented children have access to real coaching during their school days. Local education authorities should and must be prepared to make a financial contribution towards the coaching of talented children to provide equality of opportunity for all. At the moment it is discretionary within the local education authorities, but they should and must give that help.
The Football Association is worried because many local authorities are disposing of sports grounds that have been declared surplus by schools. If they become built up, that is the end of sports facilities in their areas. An added and worrying feature is that too few local authorities make any real effort to organise the dual use of their facilities to allow the general public increased access to indoor and outdoor school facilities.
Although children may have participated in sport at school, when they leave school their enthusiasm often wanes or ceases. I need hardly reiterate the social value of sporting activities to an unemployed youth or to combating youth crime. That important area was highlighted and discussed more than 20 years ago in the first and less notorious Wolfenden report. It was called the "Wolfenden gap". I am delighted that the Sports Council is taking a major initiative to fill that gap. A major campaign entitled "Ever thought of Sport?", which is specifically aimed at 13 to 24-year-olds, is being launched


in the new year. The campaign is to be jointly funded with private industry. That is a sensible move by the Sports Council because private industry can and is more than willing to help in this area. The Sports Council has undertaken a major advertising campaign to encourage young people to participate in sport.
Although I praise the initiative, I wish to give a word of warning: such a campaign cannot exist in isolation. Young people often need a kick in the right direction. As part of the campaign local clubs should be encouraged to go into schools and youth clubs to explain their existence and recruit school leavers. They must act positively. As part of that campaign they should be encouraged to hold open days, and local authorities should participate in advertising those open days. Furthermore, hon. Members can participate in the campaign by talking about it, attending open days of local clubs and generally helping in advertising the events.
The "Ever thought of Sport?" campaign could have another offshoot because our best athletes develop during their late teens. David Hemery, the Olympic hurdler, is writing a book which shows clearly that the greatest achievers are often the late developers.
If we bridge the gap between the school leaver and the young worker we come to the next group to which successive Governments have given little or no thought and certainly no priority. I refer to the fitness and health of our working population. Japan and the United States of America demonstrate the reality of the Latin maxim "Mens sana in corpore sano" which comes from Juvenal's "Satyres". It means, "A healthy mind in a healthy body". In countries where workers in offices and factories are encouraged to take physical exercise and to participate in sport, there is higher productivity, less absenteeism through ill-health and a greater corporate spirit. A fit man is undoubtedly a better worker and, as one would expect, the Japanese are unlikely to miss that trick. Japanese companies are prepared to have sports facilities at work because they are given the financial incentives through tax policies to do so. The Japanese Government are farsighted in this area. We need only consider by how much the national health bill would be reduced and how much more revenue there would be from greater productivity to understand the long-term savings that a fiscal policy that included a sport and recreation input could bring. My hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, West (Mr. Spicer), who is an expert on the subject, will have much more to say about this if he catches your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Please let us have at least a broad strategy for sport in the workplace.

Mr. John Carlisle: Is my hon. Friend worried, as I and many other hon. Members are, that playing fields belonging to companies are being sold for development in some areas? What influence could the Government bring to bear on those companies to retain those playing fields rather than selling them in highly lucrative development deals?

Mr. Ashby: I take my hon. Friend's point, which is similar to the one that I made about schools. Once those facilities are lost, they are lost for ever. The Government should consider financial incentives to encourage companies not only to create facilities but to retain those that they already have.
In the time available I cannot deal with every aspect of sport, but I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will say something about the Government's 50-plus campaign to promote fitness in the aged. It is a welcome attempt to persuade 'the older person to take up sport as part of retirement. The campaign is good, but it needs more direction and impact.
I shall deal now with the pursuit of excellence in international sport and, inevitably, politics in sport. In this Olympic year our thoughts turn to Baron de Coubertin, who saw the Olympics as part of the need to strive for advances in a "spirit of international countries." Sport was seen as a way to break down national barriers and as the typification of an international and universal language. Any challenge to that universal language was taken seriously by Governments. One recalls the enormous controversy over the bodyline bowling in the test matches between England and Australia in 1933. Tension became so great that a cable was sent to the MCC from the Australian board of control stating:
Body-line bowling has assumed such proportions as to menace the best interests of the game, making protection of the body by the batsman the main consideration. This is causing intensely bitter feeling between the players as well as injury. In our opinion it is unsportsmanlike. Unless stopped at once it is likely to upset the friendly relations existing between Australia and England.
Such feelings have not completely died. More recently a cable was sent from the New Zealand to the Australian Prime Minister after controversy during a one-day cricket match, when Trevor Chappell bowled the last ball of the match underarm to prevent New Zealand from getting the six runs it needed to win.
There is still anxiety about maintaining the sporting ideal, but it is becoming increasingly subordinate to commercial demands and political restraint. Naturally, sport cannot be completely removed from politics, just as politics cannot be completely removed from sport. That fact was clearly acknowledged when the Gleneagles agreement was reached. However, we must not allow sporting interests to be subordinated to political pressures. Politics can run alongside sport, but they cannot run at the expense of sport and should not be allowed to do so. If they are, the cohesion of international sport would be lost and the universal language would be destroyed.
The greatest damage to international sport is undoubtedly caused by the numerous boycotts imposed upon games by outside political pressures. The boycott of South Africa is just the tip of the iceberg. There was a boycott of the 1980 Olympic games in Moscow, and the Soviet reprisal at the coming Olympics in Los Angeles. Boycotts are not new. In 1948 the newly-created state of Israel was banned from competing in the London Olympics because it might have led to a boycott by Arab states. Spain, Switzerland and the Netherlands boycotted the 1956 Olympics in Melbourne due to the Soviet invasion of Hungary and the presence of an unrepresentative Hungarian team at those games.
In 1982, 108 British athletes—men such as Allan Lamb and Andy Irvine — were placed on a blacklist because they had sporting links with South Africa. Black countries agreed not to participate in competition with teams that included men on the blacklist. Thus the rebel cricketers who toured South Africa in 1982 were banned. Perhaps more worrying is the rumour that coloured Commonwealth countries have enough votes to ban


England from the 1986 Commonwealth games because of those links with South Africa. The idea, though preposterous, is possible.
It is our duty to prevent the universal language of sport from being destroyed by external political factors. Recommendation 4 of the first report of the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs on the 1980 Olympic games stated:
In view of the growing exploitation of the Olympic Games, as a forum for political protest, Her Majesty's Government, in co-operation with other interested Governments, should take measures to ensure the long-term future for the Olympic Games in conditions insulated as far as possible from international political controversy and should support an internationally coordinated effort to find a site or sites for the Games which will fulfil this effort.
That seems to be the best way of dealing with the problems of successive Olympic games.
If we stopped competing with all countries that have bad records on human rights, there would be few countries left to compete with. The carrot is a more effective weapon than the stick in encouraging countries to improve their domestic conditions. It is better for those countries, for oppressed people and for sport itself that we should continue the dialogue of sport by playing with those countries.
My motion recognises the Government's contribution to sport, and it would be churlish of me not to pay the highest possible tribute to my hon. Friend the Minister. While I was researching for the debate I came to realise increasingly the minefield in which he operates and his great achievements within the limitations and restraints imposed upon him. Those restraints are properly imposed in a democracy, because sports have self-governing bodies and he can try only to influence their decisions. We all want political involvement in sport, but we do not want political interference.
The Minister operates largely through the Sports Council, and I am extremely impressed by the great changes taking place in that body, which I understand he instigated. Under its new director-general there is a more businesslike approach to problems and a real attempt to place its grant money at the sharp end where it counts—in coaching and development, training and international participation.
The problems are horrendous. For example, five different governing bodies in athletics receive grants totalling £55,000, roughly half the amount spent on coaching and development. Cycling costs £93,700 in administration alone, and only £19,700 goes on coaching and development. The list of sports with a number of governing bodies is endless, expenditure on administration is enormous and little goes on coaching development or training.
While we must accept that a grant may be necessary for the administration of a sport, the dissipation of that money among several bodies representing one sport cannot be justified. I know that the Sports Council accepts that and that some major changes in the right direction are taking place.
But we must give credit where it is due. Many of the sports themselves appreciate the administrative problems and the costs that they have raised. For example, the secretary of the Amateur Athletics Association writes:
We are well aware of our shortcomings in athletics and we are doing our best to rectify them in two or three years, but this is something which has grown over the last 100 years of my Association's existence.

While we must change the allocation of the grant, this is a situation which we can all understand.
We are seeing greater rationalisation and attempts commercially to exploit our national sports centres to provide added funding for them as centres of excellence. Two of the centres are partly dependent on local government funding—Crystal Palace is dependent on the Greater London council and Holm Pierrepoint, the boating centre, is dependent on Nottingham council. I understand that when the GLC is abolished the Government will fund the difference. That is no bad thing. We all remember the disgraceful behaviour of the jumped-up chairman of the GLC's recreation committee the other day, and that changeover cannot come soon enough. I echo the words that I used a few moments ago. That is a blatant example of political interference, not political involvement.
In an attempt to find out what is wrong and why we are not achieving as we might expect, I spoke to a number of organisations to which I am greatly indebted for their assistance. Among the answers is a common theme that past Governments have failed adequately to help sports financially and have at times worked against those sports organisations.
The British Olympic Association rightly complains that not only is it almost unique among nations in receiving no funding from the Government, but it is also taxed on its earnings. In the last five years that organisation has paid £375,000 in taxes. The British Olympic Association points out that this is greeted with incredulity by the Olympic associations of other countries, and even the wealthy United States of America Olympic Association has the legend on all its literature
Your contributions are tax deductible".
It should be a source of national shame that some of our greatest athletes have turned, and are turning, to foreign business men and institutions who enjoy such financial relief for help to achieve honours for this country.
I speak not only of tax relief, because the Government must be aware that the Treasury takes large amounts, directly or indirectly, from sport while returning little. The Football Association has pointed out that as long ago as 1968, in a Government survey by Sir Norman Chester, it was said that by creaming off 25 per cent. tax on football pools without putting some of that money back into football, the Government were making that tax invidious. Since then, the tax has increased to 42·5 per cent., from which the Government get more than £200 million annually.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Neil Macfarlane): I am sorry to interrupt at this stage, but my hon. Friend will be as anxious as I am, as will the House, to understand precisely what the taxation element is. It is important to know at this stage, because in recent weeks reports have given misleading information that has caused unnecessary concern. I must make it quite clear that voluntary donations, whether from the public or commerce and industry, to the British Olympic Association or any other sports organisation are not liable to corporation tax. Corporation tax is payable only on trading profits, usually from sponsorship deals, sale of goods and income from investment. I am certain that my hon. Friend will want to get this absolutely right.

Mr. Ashby: I am grateful for that clarification, but at a time like this, when the British Olympic Association needs every penny it can get, could it not have tax exemption on its own earnings?

Mr. Richard Holt: I do not think that the Minister's intervention relates to football pools income, which is taxed directly and has nothing to do with corporation tax.

Mr. Ashby: I know that my hon. Friend has an interest in other areas of sports taxation. He is most concerned with the betting levy on horse racing. Some money from that levy is ploughed back into the sport, but that does not happen with football pools.
This goose is laying a very rich egg, which should be preserved and fattened in the interests of both the Treasury and sport.

Mr. Clement Freud: One cannot fatten an egg.

Mr. Ashby: I accept that, but one can fatten the goose so that it lays lots of golden eggs.
Could not the Government put some of the money from football pools into preserving Wembley stadium, our one national football stadium? Seen against the grants given by the Sports Council, these sums of revenue appear very large indeed. The Amateur Athletics Association tells me that we are light years behind Europe in facilities, especially indoor facilities, for athletes and for training purposes. In the whole of the United Kingdom, there are only 87 synthetic tracks, one indoor track and four reasonable indoor training areas. In this regard we even lag behind Finland. The AAA has pointed out that, despite the lack of facilities, athletics can claim to be a successful sport.
With a planned facilities programme nationwide, we are entitled to ask how much more successful we would be in athletics. The AAA points out the obvious when it says that without more Government funding we shall continue to lag behind Europe for many years. With that I wholeheartedly concur.
The Hockey Federation makes the same point. It says that a gap is now developing between the United Kingdom and Europe, especially the Netherlands which has 48 synthetic cover pitches. Germany has 50 such pitches, and even Spain and France have many more than we have. The federation points out that now that hockey is increasingly played on pitches with synthetic covers, we lack the experience of playing on those pitches and, therefore, are at a distinct disadvantage when we play against other countries.
While many of the more popular sports can turn to sponsorship and television for their current expenditure, capital spending on adequate facilities is quite beyond them. This very lack of facilities inhibits the pursuit of excellence or sends our best athletes abroad for their training. Torvill and Dean, for example, are German-trained. Our ice skating success has not been matched by facilities.

Mr. Holt: They are British-trained in Germany.

Mr. Ashby: Yes, I accept that. I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Every one of our gold medallists in the recent past has trained abroad. This is simply because ice rinks

are run by local authorities which look to participation, and therefore the elite cannot get on to the ice until after 11.30 pm to train, and hence they go abroad.

Mr. Denis Howell: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that arrangements were made by Manchester council to build a national skating rink with a national school in Manchester precisely for the training of ice skaters? It did not go ahead because the National Skating Association of Great Britain refused to move its headquarters from London to Manchester, and a great opportunity was lost with the consequences that he is rightly outlining. But credit should be given to Manchester, which wished to do it.

Mr. Ashby: I am grateful for that intervention. I was not aware of that. It illustrates some of the fuddy-duddy attitudes of some of the sports organisations. It is very sad to hear that that occurred. It is sad for the sport. It did no service to ice skating if those facts are correct.
If we are to achieve the best from our sportsmen, there must be more political involvement. The British Olympic Association asks for that. It also asks for greater consultation with sporting bodies before political decisions are made. It asks for a greater supportive role from the Government.
The association points to two areas where the Government could be more supportive. The first is in medicine. It says that in comparison with other developed sporting nations, certainly in eastern Europe but also increasingly in western Europe, the United States of America and Australia, the medical support given to top athletes in those and other countries is far and away greater than that which British athletes receive.
The association carried out a survey amongst the 26 governing bodies of Olympic sports, and their needs were clearly defined in three areas. The first is a service which could enable athletes to get back into training and to fitness as quickly as possible after injury. The second is a physiological testing service which would enable athletes and coaches to monitor the training and fitness of athletes over an extended period. The third is a screening which would enable athletes' health to be monitored to ensure that, prior to the exhaustive programme of exercise which athletes undertake, scientific evidence of their physical health could be obtained.
The Government's support in the area of sports medicine is badly needed, and the British Olympic Association would also like a greater sympathy in the National Health Service for the needs and requirements of top sportsmen.
The second area pointed out by the association is in unemployment and social security benefits. Here the association points out that young athletes and competitors not only devote tremendous energy and time to performing at their sports but, in so doing, they jeopardise careers and the very means of earning their livelihood. The DHSS has discretionary powers, and the British Olympic Association would ask that the Government direct the Department to instigate a supportive and sympathetic attitude towards high-level competitors which would obviate many of the problems in this respect.
I also put in the converse plea. I ask that, where individuals or organisations have put a lot of finance into sport, the sporting organisations should be less hostile to, and more sympathetic and understanding of, that person.


That is the matter referred to earlier by the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell) about Manchester and the proposed ice skating rink. In respect of this I do not necessarily speak of Mr. Packer's cricket circus, although that comes to mind. I refer to Donington park race track, which was famous in the prewar era.
In the 1960s a Leicester builder named Tom Wheatcroft bought the track to house his museum of motor sport. He also set about renovating, restoring and improving the track. Recently he spent a further £5 million of his own money in bringing the track up to grand prix standards under the auspices of the RAC. Donington park is now one of the finest tracks in the world.
One would have thought that, having brought these incredibly good facilities to the midlands, Tom Wheatcroft would have been thanked heartily and welcomed with open arms by the motor sports world, but not a bit of it. Tom Wheatcroft's request for Donington park to be considered for the British grand prix for racing cars has been allowed, but only for 1988 and only after much debate and a writ. We have to wait five more years for a grand prix in the midlands—I include this year, with the grand prix still to be run—whilst the sport continues to be dominated in the south by Brands Hatch and Silverstone.
If that were the end of the story, Donington park could and would wait. However, if Silverstone and Brands Hatch are to get the major British grand prix for the next five years, Donington park should at least be the venue for the European championship or any second grand prix which may be allocated. I say this because the RAC, a body for which I have the greatest liking and respect, must be not only fair but seen to be fair in the allocation of these major events. At the moment Donington park is not having these secondary events allocated to it, either.
Again I pay tribute 'to the Minister and thank him for his interest, advice and support in my efforts to see that Donington park is treated justly. I shall go on raising the matter until it is treated justly.
Donington park would also like the Auto-Cycle grand prix, the title to which is held by the Auto-Cycle Union. That grand prix is held at Silverstone, and the ACU does not even want to discuss it. These titles are vested in these bodies as a trust by the international organisations. It is their duty to dispense that trust equally and fairly amongst those who have the facilities to run the sports and wish to do so.
It may be financially advantageous to the ACU and certainly to the owners of Silverstone, who must lobby the ACU with considerable success, to have the grand prix there year after year. But it is neither fair nor just to the other tracks which wish to stage the event, and it must be a breach of the ACU's trust as holder of the title to behave in this way. Behaviour of that kind is not good for the various regions, it is not good for the spectators, and it is not good for the sport.
Having put in my local plea, I turn finally to the implications of sport for our export trade. I mentioned that at the beginning of my speech, and I end on it because I feel that it justifies all my pleas for greater Government support and assistance for sport.
Both the British Olympic Association and the Football Association place great importance upon the relationship

between sport and exports and have sent me a memorandum on the subject. The Football Association tells me:
I believe that an area where we still miss out very sadly in this country is our involvement in world football. This may well apply to other sports, but about that I am more uncertain. In football there is no doubt that sending coaches from this country abroad, even for relatively brief spells, and attracting individual coaches from developing countries to attend courses in this country, could have a tremendous influence on substantial purchasing power. I believe that although the Minister for Sport has made certain effort in this direction, far more could be achieved and it would not only confirm our position as the most important country in world football, but would undoubtedly have material effects on our balance of payments. Football is an important sport in this country, but in very many of the 146 countries included in the World Football Federation, it is virtually the only team sport.
Many overseas countries such as West Germany, Korea and the United States use their sporting organisations to develop a network which enables them to benefit from trade opportunities with countries worldwide. The pattern of high-level sportsmen going to countries, developing links, followed by trade delegations and a massive influx of that country's products, is a pattern that one sees repeated time and again, especially in West Germany. I know that my hon. Friend the Minister has himself, when leading delegations abroad, placed a great emphasis on selling our sports goods and equipment. However, I am sure that he would agree that in Britain such opportunities tend to be lost for a number of reasons.
The first reason is that our sports goods trade tends to be dissipated among a large number of small companies which seldom combine to afford effective trade opportunities. Secondly, the various Government Departments charged with the task of assisting and developing trade links form a maze of bureaucracy which those involved in the sports trade have difficulty in negotiating. Thirdly, the varied Government Departments which have the opportunities for creating trade with other countries in sports goods and facilities themselves sometimes appear not to be working in harmony. We need a co-ordinated committee to develop that aspect. With the increase of leisure and the increased universality of sophisticated sports facilities and equipment, that aspect could prove vital to Britain's trade prospects.
I have only been able to touch upon some of the many problems facing sport. If I am able to summarise my speech, I say this. Faced with greater leisure, we need greater Government involvement in sport. I hope that I have been able to show that such involvement is clearly cost effective, first, in terms of health. A healthy and vital nation saves National Health Service expenditure and increases productivity and national earnings. Let us have a campaign for doctors to prescribe sport in preference to Valium. Secondly, it is cost effective in terms of revenue raised in taxation from sport either directly or indirectly. Thirdly, it is cost effective in terms of exports. Last, and by no means least, it is cost effective in terms of the national morale. Successive Governments and Parliaments have not given the right priority to sport and they ought to.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): At least nine Back Benchers want to catch my eye before half past 6, when the Front Bench spokesmen are hoping to


catch my eye. The debate must finish at 7 o'clock and that leaves 90 minutes for Back Benchers. I think that the House can do the arithmetic.

Mr. Denis Howell: I usually play 45 minutes each way in my speeches, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but, in view of what you have said, I shall try to have a truncated match.
Two aspects of the motion need to be discussed. One is the international purpose of sport and the other is its social purpose. I express the appreciation of everyone here for the opportunity to join in the debate. I congratulate the hon. Member for Leicestershire, North-West (Mr. Ashby) on having the luck of the draw, and I am grateful to him for his decision to raise this matter. He is right in saying that it has been far too long since the House last discussed sport and had sufficient time to do so instead of relying on the opportunities given at Question Time when a particular incident cropped up from time to time. The fact that such incidents do crop up in many of the questions that the hon. Gentleman has mentioned shows that there is an enormous potential political importance about sport today, much greater than in previous years, which, in my experience, as I think the Minister will know, the world outside does not appreciate. A Minister with responsibility for sport cannot occupy that office, dealing with the Foreign Office, the Home Office and various other Departments of State, without wondering from one day to the next what particular catastrophe he will be called to deal with next.
I join the hon. Member for Leicestershire, North-West in extending good wishes to our Olympic team, as I am sure every hon. Member will wish to do, and certainly to the hon. Member for Lewisham, East (Mr. Moynihan) who has been selected to cox the British eight. We wish him and his colleagues well when they go to Los Angeles. He had a great and illustrious career in previous Olympics. If he manages to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, as I hope he will, he will be the first Member for a long time who will proceed directly from speaking on sport in the House to representing the country. That is a considerable distinction that we are pleased to acknowledge.
There is enormous interest throughout the world in the great festivals of sport, whether they be the Olympic games, the Commonwealth games, the World cup, European competitions, and so on. That is not sufficiently well understood. Many hon. Members are absent today because they probably regard sport as a frivolous pursuit for the House of Commons. Nothing could be further from the truth. Sport captures the imagination of the country and, indeed, the world. It is in international sport alone that the people of the world come together.
If one visits the Olympic village and sees there people from 140 nations living together — the youth of the world—for six weeks, competing against each other and developing friendly relationships, one understands what international sport is about. Sportsmen are entitled to reflect that in no other sphere — business, commerce, education or the arts—do we provide the opportunity for the youth of the world to come together and to live as one. That is the contribution that sport makes to international understanding—the understanding of humankind—which is not made anywhere else. That is the significance of this debate, and we need more such debates. The only other

time that that happens in the Commonwealth is when Commonwealth Prime Ministers come together or during the Commonwealth games. If we begin to understand that, we begin to understand the role of sport in the world.
I notice that the Football Association has recently said that it wants to attract back one of the European competitions—the European Nations cup. I hope that the Minister, who understands the importance of international sport, will be able to say that any approach from the Football Association along those lines will be sympathetically considered by the Government.
One immediately thinks of the next great international sporting festival to be held in Britain — the Commonwealth games at Edinburgh in 1986. As I understand it, the Government are not making any resources available to Edinburgh this year compared with what was made available for the Commonwealth games in Edinburgh 1970. I can understand that much was built for the 1970 games, but I hope that the Government will give as much financial assistance as they can, especially for the much needed cycling velladrome. If the Minister does not know the answer to that now, will he consider with the Commonwealth Games Council of Scotland and the Edinburgh district council the need to ensure that they have a cycle velladrome for the 1986 games so that that event, like athletics, swimming, boxing and so on, can be properly held?
The Commonwealth games in Edinburgh have a question mark over them because of the statements made by other countries about possible boycotts arising from the behaviour of South Africa. It is important to say this year as well as any other—I said this in 1980—that boycotts of international sporting festivals are unjustified. That is true, for the reasons that we attacked Her Majesty's Government in 1980 for the boycott of the Moscow Olympics. I say it now because those of us who attacked the Government then have an obligation today to say that we are equally opposed to the boycott of the Los Angeles games by the Russians or anyone else, such as the African countries.
When the Commonwealth Prime Ministers last met, I was encouraged by the fact that they put out a pronouncement that seemed to suggest that they accepted that international sporting boycotts were not the way to deal with the South African problem. I hope that the Minister and his colleagues will take an initiative, which may be necessary, to talk to the Commonwealth Prime Ministers about the threats that have now been made. During the period of the Olympics, the future of the next Commonwealth games will be decided. I hope that the Prime Minister will remind her colleagues throughout the Commonwealth of the stand that they took when they met in Australia and of the fact that it is important, if the Commonwealth means anything at all, for Commonwealth nations to come together in Edinburgh in 1986.
I understand the South African problem, and I do not intend to spend too much time on it today. South Africa is unique in that it has discrimination among sportsmen on the ground of colour alone—

Mr. John Carlisle: No, it does not.

Mr. Howell: I am afraid that it does. I know that the hon. Member for Luton, North (Mr. Carlisle) will speak later, if he catches your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Gentleman must remember that it is not Governments


who have put South Africa out of international sport, but the sporting bodies themselves. It started with the Olympic committee, went on to FIFA in football, then to cricket, and it has gone from one international body to another. The reason is simple. It is offensive to any genuine international governing body to have half or two thirds of its members discriminated against by a member country. For that reason, the sporting bodies have banned South Africa from international competitions.

Mr. Carlisle: The right hon. Gentleman has stated that the opposition to South Africa is because, as it says in the Gleneagles agreement, there should be no discrimination based on race, colour or ethnic origin—a policy that the right hon. Gentleman supports. Can he name one sport in South Africa in which selection is based on apartheid and race, colour or ethnic origin?

Mr. Howell: It is not necessary for me to do that. When I was Minister with responsibility for sport, I laid down five or six principles that I said South Africa had to meet before it could return to international sport. Such things as the pass laws and discrimination make it impossible for large numbers of ordinary South Africans to join clubs to get the coaching and the participation that they need. That discrimination at the grass roots of sport prevents natural talent coming to the top. These facts have to be taken into account.
I do not wish to pursue this subject too far, but the hon. Member for Luton, North knows that when the rugby press correspondents last went to South Africa they were greeted with a speech by the South African Minister of Justice in which he made it crystal clear that in no circumstances would South Africa change its laws to allow equality for all sportsmen. One pays tribute to correspondents, such as Clem Thomas, who wrote articles saying that they went hoping to see these great changes that had supposedly taken place, but came back devastated by that speech. Those are the facts of the matter.
The point is that South Africa is using astronomical sums of money to bribe sportsmen from various sports to go to play in that country. Sums of as much as £70,000 a time are being offered to sportsmen to go to play in South Africa, but they must know full well that their presence in South Africa undermines the livelihoods of fellow professionals there. That shows why sport takes such a serious view of the problem.
I pay tribute to the Cricket Council—which said that if it allowed the so-called rebels to go to play in South Africa, that would undermine the livelihoods of other professional cricketers on the circuit. The council was standing up for sport as a whole, which is important. As I have said outside the House, if the Rugby Football Union were truly international in its governing and had representatives with power, the countries which play rugby would be taking the same decisions as FIFA and the IOC have been forced to take.
I come now to another subject, on which I hope I shall get more agreement from the hon. Member for Luton, North. I have the temerity to draw attention to my report on sports sponsorship and its international implications. I thank the hon. Member for Lewisham, East, who served under my chairmanship for two years, for his considerable assistance. We looked at many problems. You will be glad to hear, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that I shall not go through all the recommendations, but I must ask the Minister

whether the Government have had an opportunity to form conclusions on the recommendations that we addressed to them, particularly those that affect the multinational sports organisations now operating in international sport.
My committee was extremely concerned about what we called the conflicts of interest and the interlocking financial arrangements that were not properly disclosed to the governing bodies of sport. Some of these we mentioned and went into in detail—in particular, Adidas and the International Management Group of Mr. Mark McCormack. Our concern was not that any one of these activities by these organisations was wrong. It is obvious that Adidas and IMG do much good for their clients. Otherwise, clients would not go to them. They raise the standards of international sport and improve the benefits to sportsmen, which is an advantage.
However, in our report we point out the problems with the IMG and its involvement with Wimbledon and the British open golf championship. Mr. McCormack represents nearly all the top players taking part in the events, the governing bodies that are staging the events, the marketing interests, and the governing bodies in negotiations with television authorities in this country. He is also involved in international television negotiations and is linked with the presentation of sport here and how it is sold abroad. He represents other interests as well, including, sometimes, the commentators on televised events.
It seemed to the committee that there must be a conflict of interests in all that and that it was wrong for one man or one organisation to represent so many different interests in some of our great sports. The committee did not have the power to send for people and papers or to do the sort of full investigation that it would like to have done. We gave Mr. McCormack the opportunity to appear before us, but he did not avail himself of that opportunity. Mr. Dassler of Adidas did appear before us and gave us answers that are mentioned in the report. I do not agree with that company's policy, but I pay tribute to Mr. Dassler for appearing before us at a lengthy session. Mr. McCormack did not feel able to do that.
The committee found that there was a case for an investigation to be conducted by the Government into all those interlocking interests. At the very least, all those interests between various companies ought to be disclosed so that the international governing bodies know what is going on. I hope that the Minister agrees with that and will refer the matter to the Office of Fair Trading.
The importance of the issue has been highlighted in the past week by articles in The Guardian and the Daily Mail. The BBC has offered £9 million to televise athletics over the next few years and the IBA has offered £10 million. A legitimate discussion is taking place in athletics about whether the quality of the BBC's uninterrupted coverage, with no advertisements, is the right approach or whether the sport should take the extra £1 million. That is a matter for the sport to decide.
However, I understand that if the IBA gets the contract, Mr. McCormack will offer £4 million to carry out the packaging and all the advertising. That is a serious situation. We shall see at Los Angeles a foretaste of what might happen. It is said that, because Governments no longer impose restrictions on sponsors advertising during the events that they sponsor, people such as Mr. McCormack will buy up all the advertising time before, during and after the events. In the newspaper articles to


which I referred, he says that not only does he want to have his athletes running in the events, but he wants to organise the sponsorship and the advertising on television before, during and after those events. That ought to be unacceptable to the House. It is against the public interest to have one man or one organisation with such power. The sports bodies should be careful to maintain their independence at all times and not to have the finances of their sports removed from their control. I am glad to see the Minister showing some agreement and I hope that he supports my views.
The main thrust of the motion is the social purpose of the sport. I am disappointed at the Minister's attitude to appointments to sporting bodies. When I had his job, I went out of my way to make appointments from a broad spectrum. I was disappointed when the two vice chairmen of the Sports Council, Mr. John Disley and Mr. Bernard Atha, were removed by the Minister. That was wrong. It seems that we are not maintaining a general political balance. Mr. Disley is one of the few people left in sports politics who understand what the relationship ought to be between the Government, the Sports Council and sporting bodies. I attached the greatest importance to getting that right, and things have gone wrong because that balance has been lost.
For example, I am pursuing the reasons for the enforced resignation of the director of the Sports Council, Mr. Emlyn Jones, who, according to the chairman of the Sports Council, was required to resign by the Minister. The Minister denies that, and we do not know what is the truth. The chairman says one thing and the Minister says another. It is known that Mr. Jones was required to resign. There should not have been such interference.
Even worse, the new vice chairman of the Sports Council is a leading Conservative councillor, whom I first appointed to the council in my pursuit of balance. Having got rid of Mr. Jones, the Government then got rid of the deputy director, Mr. John Coghlan. At a stroke, the two principal executive officers of the Sports Council were removed by one form of political interference or another. That was wrong and regrettable.
I welcome my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) to the Opposition Front Bench. I know that he takes a great interest in sport, which is welcomed by all the sports organisations and certainly by me. I hope that he will pursue with the Government the financing of local authority facilities now that the GLC and the metropolitan counties are to be abolished. I have a list of 43 undertakings being financed by those councils. We want an assurance from the Minister that the money that those authorities were providing will be provided by the Government.
I gather that the Sports Council has estimated that £5 million is needed for work at Crystal palace, but the Central Council of Physical Recreation estimates that at least three times that sum will be required in all. Whoever is right, I hope that the money will be forthcoming to ensure—

Mr. Tony Banks: May I underline that point? I understand that the Sports Council is talking about an extra £5 million from the Department of the Environment to cover everything, including the GLC's current contribution to the Crystal Palace national

sports centre and the contributions of the GLC and the metropolitan counties to sport generally. Compared with the money that those authorities are spending, the estimate of £5 million is woefully inadequate.

Mr. Howell: My hon. Friend is right, and I should correct a figure that I gave earlier. The CCPR estimate is £18 million.
If we had been debating arts today, there would be three times as many hon. Members present. The arts grant is £101·9 million, but the Sports Council grant is only £30 million. I think that that gives us an idea of the lack of balance on this aspect of the matter.
Sport for all, for the unemployed and for youth, is vital. I cannot understand how the Government fail to appreciate the importance of sport to the large numbers of unemployed. This month in my constituency between 80 and 90 per cent. of those leaving school in a multiracial area are going straight into unemployment, to join 50 per cent. of last years' school leavers and 40 per cent. from the year before. They have time on their hands, and there are no resources available to them. Yet the Government are urging that playing fields should be sold.
A year or two ago, the Minister announced a joint study of these matters by his Department and the Department of Education and Science. That study seems to have sunk without trace. What was the result? Can the Minister assure us that the Government understand the vital social importance of sports provision, especially in areas of growing unemployment, such as the inner cities? It is desperately important that sports facilities and coaches should be provided. The Government must understand the social purpose and the philosophy of sport.
This subject embraces political opinion on both sides of the House. We understand the social importance of sport and want to see it provided for. If facilties are not provided for the youth of our country—especially the growing number of unemployed young people—the cost to the country as a whole will be great.
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Leicestershire, North West for providing the opportunity for me to make this speech.

Mr. John Carlisle: I am delighted to follow the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell), although I shall not at this point pursue his controversial remarks on South Africa. I shall merely put it on record that he has himself said that all the five points that he put to the South African authorities and the Progressive Federal party had been met. That being so, I fail to see how he can continue to take that line.
I pay tribute to the right hon. Gentleman for his long and detailed study of sponsorship in sport, to which the House and the Government must pay attention. I also pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, East (Mr. Moynihan) and wish him well in Los Angeles later this month. I thank both the right hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friend for an excellent report.
My hon. Friend the Member for Leicestershire, North-West (Mr. Ashby) was sensible to take the good advice of his many friends that this subject should be aired. It is true that we do not talk about sport enough here. I hope that my hon. Friend will not take it amiss if I do not entirely follow the views expressed in his motion. As he himself says, we need more Government involvement in sport and


less interference. I suspect that if we followed my hon. Friend's policy to the letter and the line, there would inevitably be an enlargement of the responsible Department and more involvement by the Treasury, and perhaps a feeling in national and local government that there was interference from above.
The Conservative party is a party which stands on its own feet, and I fully support the words in the motion about encouraging companies to give their employees more facilities. That would help to create a healthy nation. That is probably the better part of the motion, which we are most grateful to my hon. Friend for putting down.
I cast no aspersions on my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State in saying that the position of Minister with responsibility for sport is one that is always in question on the Conservative Benches. Thank heavens, the Minister at present responsible for sport has acquitted himself admirably throughout his term of office.
I should like to concentrate on international sport. I believe that heavy political influence is being brought to bear on sports selection throughout the world. It may be ironic that this debate should take place just before the Olympic games. The last major debate in the House on sport —here here I must correct my hon. Friend—was in January 1980, as the right hon. Member for Small Heath reminded us. The Prime Minister then put forward a motion justifying the Government's opinion that our athletes should not go to Moscow. On that occasion, as a fairly new and green Member, I supported my right hon. Friend in the Lobby. That was an action which I now bitterly regret. I was totally wrong to support the Government, and the Government themselves were quite wrong in penalising sportsmen because of the political distaste which we all shared for the Russian involvement in Afghanistan.
Unfortunately, on that occasion, as so often, the sportsmen were pitched to make clear the wrath of our political masters. I believe that the Government's action led directly to the tit-for-tat in which the Russians and the Eastern Europeans have now boycotted the games in Los Angeles, probably reducing those games—apart from rowing—to a second-class spectacle, to the sadness of everyone in this country and throughout the world.
What is particularly sad is that youngsters from behind the iron curtain have been denied the opportunity to visit a free nation and mix with young sportsmen and sportswomen—as our young sportsmen were denied the opportunity to visit Moscow. They have been denied an opportunity to swap ideas and to gain some idea of how the other half lives — to share different cultural and political opinions.
That is the tragedy of Los Angeles. Western sportsmen would have had an opportunity to influence the Russians and Eastern Europeans, showing them the freedom which we in the West enjoy. The House and the Government agree that contact on the field is an effective way of spreading our diplomatic favours in a peaceful situation rather than in the cold world of diplomacy. We have lost an opportunity—as we did at the Moscow Olympics—for our ambassadors of sport to spread our gospel and to break down the barriers between our two countries.
The heavy political influence on selection in international terms is the more to be regretted because of recent events. I should not be so naive as to suggest that sport and politics do not mix. This is a complicated question. As my hon. Friend the Member for

Leicestershire, North-West said, the Government have a duty to involve themselves, but not to interfere. It is our job to begin to dismantle the political barriers which, regrettably, now exist in sport and not—as we have done by our adherence to the Gleneagles agreement—to support those barriers.
I do not want to dwell on the question of the Gleneagles agreement, but there are one or two points which I should like to make. We should not forget that the "Commonwealth Statement on Apartheid in Sport", to give it its full title, was not ratified by this House. The Government of the day never sought the approval of the House of Commons. It was never ratified by the sportsmen. As far as I know—although the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath, who was in office when the agreement was signed, may be able to correct me—no sportsmen were consulted. The agreement was never ratified by the British people. It has had a devastating effect on some sportsmen, both here and in South Africa.
My views and my opposition to the agreement are well known to my hon. Friend and to the House. My hon. Friend understands that my views are shared by many hon. Members, as is evidenced by an early-day motion which has been signed by 108 Conservative Members. It expresses support for the English Rugby Football Union's visit to South Africa. It has been shown in successive opinion polls that never less than 70 per cent. of the public find the Gleneagles agreement abhorrent. I understand the circumstances of my hon. Friend and the Government in regard to that agreement, but I hope that it will be amended.
One of the Minister's first loves is cricket. Indeed, he excels at the game. Like many others, I am sure that he will have found watching the English side being decimated in two test matches harrowing. We must ask ourselves whether the matches are fair. Fairness is one of the hallmarks of British sportsmanship. Is it fair that four or five—some people believe it is more—players of great ability are forced by the rules of international cricket, and, indirectly, by Government influence, to stand aside while our test side suffers humiliation? The men who went to South Africa in 1981 did so perfectly legitimately, as do thousands of British business men each year, to pursue their trade and to be paid accordingly. They broke no law, but were penalised for going. When people cry "Foul" about that, they have every reason to do so.
The decision was made by the Test and County Cricket Board. The International Cricket Conference went to South Africa in 1979 and after an extensive visit, recommended that an ICC team be sent to South Africa to see whether the conditions which the right hon. Member for Small Heath described with eloquence, but, if I may say so, with ignorance, exist. It went to see whether organisation is based on race, colour or ethnic origin. The ICC found that those conditions, as set out in the Gleneagles agreement, did not apply and that therefore an ICC team should be sent. Players were banned by the Test and County Cricket Board for three years. Principal among the prosecutors on the ICC and influencing the Test and County Cricket Board were none other than the West Indian board of control and the Indian board of control.

Mr. Macfarlane: I apologise for interrupting during this important element of my hon. Friend's speech, but in the interests of accuracy the House should examine closely what he has just said. I understand that the


recommendations which my hon. Friend has mentioned were not voted on by the whole ICC. The House would find it strange to think that Sri Lanka, Pakistan, the Caribbean islands and India would send representatives to South Africa. It is true that some representatives of the ICC went on a fact-finding tour and then reported. That tour was not wholly sponsored by the ICC, nor was it ratified. My hon. Friend will be the first to realise, bearing in mind the realism that he deploys on these occasions, that that would be very unlikely.

Mr. Carlisle: My hon. Friend is right. The full ICC was not represented on the visit, but it had the blessing and the official title of the ICC. The strange thing is that the report was never published. It is still at Lords gathering dust. One can only surmise that it was never made public because the ICC was not entirely happy with its conclusions. The West Indian board of control strongly objected to players who went to South Africa. Indeed, it suffered from that later. The direct result is that the English XI has been weakened and that selection of our national team has been influenced by another cricketing authority. That has shades of Mr. Vorster who, in 1968, refused to accept Basil d'Oliveira. He had some influence on the Marylebone Cricket Club selectors at the time. The wheel has come full circle.
I should be out of order if I were to say that the Test and County Cricket Board's decision was influenced in some small way by the Government and their adherence to the Gleneagles agreement. I take the point that the right hon. Member for Small Heath made, and which my hon. Friend the Minister often makes, that the original bannings of South Africa were made by the sports authorities. Since then, however, the goal posts have been moved—not by the sportsmen or the sports authorities, but by politicians. Sportsmen and sports administrators are now hog-tied by an agreement over which they have little influence and which they did not approve.
A topical item has come to my notice and should be brought to the attention of the House. It concerns the 1985 Whitbread round-the-world yacht race. A joint services yacht had been entered. Unfortunately, a grant of £290,000 towards the 1 million costs which was promised by the Ministry of Defence has been withdrawn because the yacht was to have called in at Cape Town, as will all of the others. I shall quote the Government's view as expressed by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence Procurement on 29 June:
A service entry in the round-the-world yacht race would be incompatible with the Government's policy on links with South Africa since it would involve a stopover in Capetown for service men on duty and would carry the unavoidable risk of competing with South African entries, thereby contravening the Commonwealth statement on apartheid in sport"— [Official Report, 29 June 1984; Vol. 62, c. 556.]
The yacht would be going round the world in an international competition. Cape Town is just one of the places where the yachts will stop to be refurbished, where crews might be changed and where provisions will be taken on board. It is disgraceful that, because of one stop and a petty-minded decision, the young men and women involved will be denied a wonderful opportunity. In no way does the stop contravene the Gleneagles agreement, as the competition is not a direct one between Britain and South Africa. I hope that my right hon. Friend the

Secretary of State for Defence will reconsider his decision. It is ironic that, only last December, 180 personnel who were employed by independent contractors but who were working for the British Government passed through Cape Town and Johannesburg on their way to the Falkland Islands. If their stopping in South Africa was acceptable, I see no reason why the yacht should not stop there. The grant should be reinstated.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: Does my hon. Friend believe that Commonwealth Governments should together change the Gleneagles agreement, or does he go further and say that if they do not Britain should pay no further attention to it?

Mr. Carlisle: My hon. Friend has great perception, for I was about to turn to that issue. Perhaps the time has come for the Government to take the initiative and to try to bring some influence to bear on the Commonwealth. Everyone knows that the Government are tied by the Gleneagles agreement, which was honourably signed and which has been honourably supported by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and by my hon. Friend the Minister with responsibility for sport. However, the time has come for some adjustment to be made to the agreement.
It has been recognised in the House that selection in South Africa is not now based on race, colour or ethnic origin. As my hon. Friend the Member for Leicestershire, North-West said, South Africa should be given the carrot rather than the stick. Some recognition should be given to those brave sportsmen, sportswomen and sport administrators in South Africa who have tried desperately within the laws of their land to select their teams by means of a process that is not based on race, colour or ethnic origin. That must not be forgotten.
My hon. Friend the Minister will understand that boycotts and sanctions are now beginning to inflict real harm upon those in South Africa who were intended to benefit from them. I have found a somewhat strange ally in a former Foreign Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire, South-East (Mr. Pym), who, in "Politics of Consent", writes:
To begin with discard all hypocrisy and double standards. However repressive the South African regime, it is no more repressive than dozens of other regimes from the Soviet Union downwards. This fact does not excuse South Africa but it is reason enough not to make her the sole inmate of an isolation war. The habit of doing so is both intellectually and morally dishonest … We should either boycott all nations or none of them. I can see no point in empty moral gestures … I regret the imposition of sporting and cultural boycotts, as I do not believe in shutting down human contact, but the exertion of influence by economic and political contacts is a legitimate tactic.
My right hon. Friend was Foreign Secretary until very recently, but there has been movement in South Africa, with a visit here by Mr. P. W. Botha, and it seems that the Government have a somewhat warmer approach to South Africa. When my hon. Friend has talks and negotiations with the various sporting bodies, both international and national, I ask him, in all sincerity, to try to find a chink of light in the present rather sad situation and to bring hope to many thousands of sportsmen.

Mr. Clement Freud: The arithmetic of the debate when it was thrown open to the House was that the nine of us who wanted to contribute to it would each have 10 minutes. The seven of us who


remain are now left with less than six minutes each. That is our allocation if we are to be honourable. I shall do my best to abide more closely to time than those who have preceded me.
Mine will be a rather more domestic and mundane view of the motion than that taken by others. First, I congratulate the hon. Member for Leicestershire, North-West (Mr. Ashby) on introducing it. I have the impression that it seeks to deal with participation and co-ordination between sporting bodies and the encouragement of businesses to provide sporting facilities. We at Westminster are involved with and employ about 3,000 people, and yet we have no sports facilities except a rather tatty gymnasium with a sauna bath in Norman Shaw, North. We have no football pitches, sports grounds, facilities, swimming pools, squash courts or tennis courts. I am not sure whether we have any right to speak about the provision of sporting facilities.
It seems that we have a national philosophy that it is not nice to try to win. Our children are always encouraged to participate in sport but no great prize is given for achievement. We are beaten by the South Africans at rugby football and we do miserably at cricket. There are those who say that they do not know what will happen when the next test match begins. I know what will happen; we shall do as miserably as we did in the previous two tests.
We do not have one man in the tennis top 20 and no woman in the top 10. I pay great tribute to Mr. John Lloyd and congratulate him on his success. I would hate to be the only person not to wish well the hon. Member for Lewisham, East (Mr. Moynihan). I hope that he returns with at least nine medals. Even at bowls we lose to Hong Kong and at football we cannot beat the Danes.
In our pursuit of excellence, we must try to create an infrastructure that enables even younger people than at present to involve themselves in competitive sport as they do in the United States, where a child of eight years on the east coast will occasionally have competed in swimming, for example, with children of the same age on the other side of the country. I remind the House that that is a very much larger country than the United Kingdom and that its national sporting events are much harder to organise than ours.
We have more per capita injuries in sport than in any other civilised nation. One of the reasons is that we keep our medical achievements, which in some instances are considerable, very much closer to factional interests than other countries. In boxing, for example, we have one or two experts who are brilliant at dealing with cuts. Those experts do not teach others. On the contrary, they want to keep their skills a secret so that the other man will bleed while their man recovers. We have certain football trainers who are excellent at dealing with knee injuries and others who are competent at handling other forms of footballing injuries. The Government should encourage these experts to share their knowledge.
I am not sure whether the hon. Member for Leicestershire, North-West wants more money directed to sport or more Government interference. When I asked the Prime Minister to provide more funds for the Open University, she accused Opposition Members of trying always to get the Government to spend more money and of then complaining about taxation.
It would be right for the Government to take the view that sport is related to health. The concept of the National

Health Service was triggered when medical officers examined those who had volunteered for the Boer War. They found that few volunteers were medically fit. That is when the nation began to take an interest in the health of the citizen. It is on that ground that I ask the Minister to consider the cost effectiveness of funding sport.
Greyhound racing is a viable sport and yet there is extraordinary elitism within it. Some tracks are licensed by the National Greyhound Racing Council and many are not. There are the most admirable flapping tracks in my constituency but if anyone runs his dogs on those tracks they are not allowed to run under the same name on other tracks. I suppose that that is an example of apartheid. The NGRC has a monopoly in knackermeat and the trainers in my constituency who train on flapping tracks cannot buy horsemeat or sub-quality meat for their dogs merely because the tracks are not licensed.
I have spoken for only a few minutes, but I shall do the honourable thing and resume my place so that others may participate in the debate.

Mr. Colin Moynihan: It can be argued that the international sporting world is heading for a crisis. The motion refers to at least six areas of sport whose futures are beset by major problems. At its worst, the Olympic movement heads remorselessly from boycott to boycott. We have moved from de Coubertin's early idealism to the power of multi-million dollar deals, from amateurism to shamateurism and from well trained competitors to the laboratory race to produce drug perfected automatons. Furthermore, international participation at any level increasingly becomes the product of political decisions. Our debate has already concentrated on the Gleneagles agreement, on whose gossamer clauses the success or shambles of the 1986 British-hosted Commonwealth games hangs delicately in the balance.
In national sport, limited financial support leaves promising recreational schemes on the drawing board, while the internal politics of sport often make this House tame by comparison.
My hon. Friend the Member for Leicestershire, North-West (Mr. Ashby) called our attention to governing bodies. Here we find men of outstanding ability and commitment who in our generation have held together —and promoted—the sportsmen of today. But they, regrettably, are few in number. For every Sir Arthur Gold or the late Sir Denis Follows there are 20 members of governing bodies who have never been to see their Olympic hopefuls in training. The generation gap is nowhere more evident than here.
The pressures on today's athletes are a far cry from what they were 15 years ago; so much greater is the need for them to have the support and understanding of those who serve them — and serve them they should — on governing bodies, for it is the sports men and women who come first. Those who have the honour to serve them would do well to remember that without them their own role holds no relevance. It is to that issue and to the promotion, marketing and development of sport at its grass roots that those people should be committing themselves in looking to the future.
We need more young people on our governing bodies. Men and women who will retire after this year's Olympics should be urged to participate at the top level of sports administration: in fact, there is a duty on them so to do.


The world of sport has given much to them in personal satisfaction and support, and the least they can do, having received so much, is to give a little back. Tomorrow's stars and today's participants, especially at the grass roots, and, above all, the governing bodies will then benefit.
I have already had the privilege in an Adjournment debate of drawing attention to the drug abuse in sport. The excellent Sports Council initiative has moved forward a stage since then. Its new code does much to stamp out that form of cheating in sport. My regret is over the failure of some governing bodies to have acted urgently with the commitment to find new punishments to fit that sporting crime.
An independent court of appeal, guided by the International Olympic Committee and governing body's lists of banned substances, and sitting under the aegis of the Sports Council's drug abuse advisory group, is essential. Then a ban for life, and nothing less, for the guilty should be imposed.
I have had the honour of being a steward of the British Boxing Board of Control since I came down from university. My comments on boxing, interventions aside, should take five minutes and 27 seconds, which would keep me on target for a gold medal in Los Angeles and a new Olympic record. More important than anything, I might find favour with those hon. Members who still wish to speak.
I have seen the standards of medical supervision in professional boxing move forward dramatically. Boxing in Britain leads the world in assessing, maintaining and developing standards of medical control. It is we, the British, who introduced the universal boxing passport two years ago, now carried by all boxers under the aegis of the World Boxing Council and containing specific medical and boxing records. It is we who have sought to improve the state of boxers' fitness and the degree of medical control.
Every boxer has an annual medical examination. Every boxer is seen by the board's medical officers. Every boxer is examined at the weigh-in, prior to going into the ring, and after the fight, win or lose. Every boxer who loses inside the distance is automatically suspended for 28 days and must then pass a full medical examination. Every fight has two doctors at the ringside, and CT scans are now often used. That is not the world of yesterday's boxing booths. Furthermore, despite the considerable powers of the press —and television fees—the BBBC puts the interests of the boxer first.
John Conteh was pulled out of a world title fight by the board. Charlie Magri's Zambian opponent in a Commonwealth title fight recently was withdrawn even after the weigh-in, and despite Zambian medical clearance and television's wishes to the contrary. Leading boxers have been retired — Vernon Solas and Jackie Turpin come to mind.
Yet the British Medical Association made its decision after an emotive speech to its 1982 conference by Dr. Butten, who had never seen a boxing match nor produced any relevant statistics. The report emanating from the conference found boxing guilty and challenged the sport there and then to prove its innocence—a staggering way to proceed in this country. Therefore, it came as no surprise that the board did not participate in the report. The board's history of willingness in assisting in investigations

has been proved on many occasions, not least with the Robertson report for the Royal College of Physicians. The report on reaction time and the BB isoenzyme report are two current examples of the board's assistance. Nothing in the BMA report addressed itself to British professional boxing today.
The sad reality is that many sports are dangerous. Between 1969 and 1981, 480 people died in sport, according to the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys. Among the 480 were two professional boxers and three amateurs. Does the BMA want to ban all sports where danger exists? What of mountaineering, horse riding, football and rugby, where in each case the figures for deaths are higher? Indeed, what of smoking and drinking? Yet all involved in boxing should welcome this second-rate report, for one reason alone: it focuses our attention on the continual need to improve our medical standards. This British boxing has done and will continue to do.
Abolition will drive boxers abroad. I remember well the lightweight Williams, who failed our eyesight tests, gained a licence to box in Belgium, and is now back here with poor vision, having suffered a detached retina. Yet all those matters are secondary in this House to freedom of choice. Unlike compulsory seat belts, banning boxing is like banning the motor car. With enhanced medical control, we have already voluntarily put on our seat belts. As long as the boxing world strengthens its controls in the interests of boxers, this widely popular sport should go from strength to strength.

Sir Nicholas Bonsor: I am sorry to spoil my hon. Friend's record for brevity. I warmly endorse his remarks on boxing. Perhaps he would agree that it would be sad to move on without mentioning the admirable role played by amateur boxing as a social function, particularly in deprived areas. It is a wonderful way of keeping young people out of trouble and channelling their aggressive instincts into worthwhile sporting ends.

Mr. Moynihan: I wholly endorse my hon. Friend's intervention. If it were not for the excellent control—not least the excellent medical control—of the amateur sport of boxing, we would not have the professional sport that we have today. It is a sport that does a great deal, especially today, to encourage youngsters who lack direction to come into the boys' clubs countrywide and to be assisted in developing strength, determination and personal courage. Amateur boxing has given great assistance which should be recognised throughout this House, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that point
In the next few weeks many people will be able to witness our Olympic achievements. As they do, I hope that they will find time to reflect on the need for vision and enlightened thinking for the future of the International Olympic Committee and the Olympic games, for it is in the hands of those on the IOC that the future of the games lies. The prospect for 1988 in Seoul looks bleak.
In my view, possibly the only successful future for the games lies in the establishment of a permanent site, run and policed by the International Olympic Committee, financed out of the vast income of television fees, and established by all nations along the lines of the Vatican model. That idea must be examined further, at the very least. Greece comes immediately to mind, for historical


reasons. Finland comes to mind for its great staging of the 1983 world athletics championships, and because of its position as a window to the east and west. Both countries should be strong candidates for consideration.
With a permanent site should then come open games, to get rid of the hypocrisy that now exists in regard to payment of athletes. An IOC charity, as the due recipient of the millions of dollars received during the games—and particularly through television—could support sport and recreation schemes world-wide, along the lines of a sporting international development association. Perhaps de Coubertin's ideals can find a new forum in a very different and fast-changing world, perhaps not, but the onus is on the shoulder of each member of the International Olympic Committee to look forward and to save what has been, unfortunately, an otherwise sadly backward-looking movement for international participation in sport. The two consecutive boycotts have done much damage to the Olympic movement.
I should like to record my deep appreciation of the support that I have received from colleagues on both sides of the House in the debate and outside, as well as for the hundreds of supporting letters from constituents. They already know the feeling of sport and politics mixed, as the previous Conservative Member of Parliament for my seat was Mr. Christopher Chataway, a sportsman who is far more capable and far better than I shall ever be. I take those letters and gestures of goodwill not as support for me but for all our athletes who are heading for Los Angeles. My humble and sincere thanks to all of them.

Mr. John Forrester: I join in congratulating the hon. Member for Leicestershire, North-West (Mr. Ashby) on choosing this subject for debate, and wish the hon. Member for Lewisham, East (Mr. Moynihan) good luck at Los Angeles. The speakers have dealt with a wide range of topics, but I shall contain my remarks to four or five points and deal with them briefly in view of the time.
Everyone now accepts that, at a time of increased leisure, more facilities are needed, if only because Satan finds work for idle hands or, in the perhaps better words of the motion, there is great virtue in having a fit and healthy nation. Everyone agrees that there is a chronic shortage of facilities for sport and recreation and that successive Governments have failed to meet that need. At times it seems that deficiencies in services are not necessarily noticed, but there comes a time in history when that shortage can no longer be ignored. The time for improving our sporting facilities has come upon us. The key to solving the problem is finance. Because of the Government's restrictions and rate-capping proposals, many local authorities are very cautious about starting capital projects which may lead them into revenue problems and penalties.
I shall raise a constituency point which illustrates the problem of many older cities. Stoke-on-Trent had five public baths. In recent years we had to demolish four of them, because of old age or mining subsidence, or a mixture of both. The remaining pool ought to be demolished. We have replaced them with only one modern public baths and a pool especially for the disabled, for which a large amount of money was raised by public

subscription and effort. Clearly, a new baths is desperately needed. We also have a chronic shortage of indoor dry sports facilities.
Stoke-on-Trent has been very fortunate in the amount of money that it has received from successive Governments for land reclamation. I pay tribute to them for that. But much of the reclaimed land is unsuitable for hard wearing sports use, because of its poor quality.
Like many other cities, Stoke-on-Trent has failed to achieve inner city area status, although we know not why. We, too, have the problems of the older industrial cities. Cities like ours have been denied funds by which we could have renewed or upgraded our facilities. The other source of income may be the Sports Council, but, of course, it is short of money. It does not have enough money to go round; certainly not enough to do what it knows must be done. If we are to make real progress in the provision of sporting and recreational facilities, money needs to be found from somewhere and local authorities have to be confident that they will not incur penalties.
The hon. Member for Leicestershire, North-West referred in his speech, as the motion does, to the need for encouragement of businesses to provide facilties. I wholeheartedly support that. There are many good facilities at the moment, but, as has been mentioned, many firms face financial constraints and must make savings in non-profitable sectors. Some of them have gone out of business.
It would be a tragedy if those workplace sporting facilities were lost to the community. I understand that the Sports Council is investigating the possibility of joint use schemes with public bodies. I hope that the Parliamentary Under-Secretary will encourage them—I see that he is nodding agreement—as that will be a way of saving the existing facilities and encouraging firms to create more, for the good of us all.
Another area that is giving cause for concern is that of facilities in schools that are listed for closure because of falling rolls or reorganisation. If those sites were sold and the facilities lost to the community, I am sure the Minister will agree that that would be a grievous loss. It is clearly a national problem and I hope that the Minister will encourage a national solution. I accept that not all school facilities are used to their fullest extent after schools have closed. We should encourage that sort of use, but the trend seems to be for county councils to close down facilities to save money and not offend those who ask them to make cuts.
I have always been a firm believer in encouraging excellence in sport and extending our facilities to produce more stars. Anyone who comes home with a medal for any of the sporting activities encourages more spectators to watch his particular sport and encourages the younger generation to take part and to emulate him. If we are to breed champions—this is essential in sport—we must use the stars of today and give them the facilities. The standards that have been achieved could be maintained and enhanced for the future. Success breeds success. It adds to national pride and satisfaction. The desire for victory continues and the poeple want to feel that they are a part of it.
I shall now deal briefly with the subject of hooliganism, which besmirches the football scene particularly. We would be missing the point if we thought that hooliganism was entirely the result of unemployment. The problem was there in the more affluent days before the recession. I say


to the Minister that, if there is evidence that political groups are using these events to practise their evil creed, we should take even stronger measures to deal with the problem.
Many clubs have done what they can to segregate rival supporters and to shepherd them to and from the stations. I can never understand why it is considered sensible to have alcohol on sale inside football grounds. I wonder whether we should adopt the Scottish experiment of banning alcohol from grounds, and from coaches and trains going to and coming from matches. There is no doubt that it is a serious problem. Banning alcohol sales may be just one of the ways in which we can tackle it.
We must look to the future. The Minister has, I believe, been made aware of a scheme that was put forward by Councillor Doug Brown in Stoke-on-Trent. To explain it briefly to hon. Members, the scheme is called "Match Mates" and involves competitions or matches between schools close to the times when two football league teams meet. Matches are arranged in the town where the league match is taking place, and are between teams from several schools. Lunch is arranged for the children by their parents or teachers. They are given tickets to watch the football match in the afternoon.
The intention is to teach youngsters that competition and friendly rivalry in sport does not necessarily have to involve violence on or off the field. The idea has received tremendous support from leading football clubs, local authorities and business people who have sponsored various events. However, the scheme needs a regular source of income. I believe that it is worthy of Government support. If it is a success, that will not be evident for some time. I hope that the Minister will give the scheme his full support—

Mr. Macfarlane: I am happy to say that the hon. Gentleman's constituents have written to me about that and are coming to see me to discuss it.

Mr. Forrester: I am grateful for that. I hope that the Minister will give the scheme his full support and encouragement.

Mr. Jim Spicer: I shall follow your advice, Mr. Speaker, and be as brief as possible.
I should like to declare my interest, first as chairman of the company Fitness for Industry, which, in the words of that old television advertisement, is "probably" the best company in this field in the country. Secondly, I am a member of the South West Regional Council for Sport and Recreation. Thirdly, I am the chairman, secretary and general dogsbody of the "rather tatty gymnasium with a sauna bath", referred to by the hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, North-East (Mr. Freud). I reject that description absolutely.
I noticed that the hon. Gentleman dwelt on the word "sauna" with a sinister implication. We would offer him a fair and free assessement in our gymnasium. I promise him that it would be the hardest afternoon's workout that he has ever had. I hope that he will take advantage of that kind offer. At the same time, I pay a great tribute to the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell), who played such a major part in helping us to get that gymnasium off the ground seven or eight years ago.
My particular interest in all those three differing fields is based on the absolute fact that prevention is not only better than cure, but cheaper in terms of cost, both to the individual and to the state. Activists in sport pose no problem, but they comprise only about 10 per cent. of the population. The other 90 per cent. are a problem. How do we encourage them? How do we get them off their backsides and doing something positive outside instead of sitting and feeling that they are participating by watching sport on television?
With regard to fitness and sport, at the top end of the scale there is absolutely no problem. Schemes are run and financed by the British United Provident Association and other companies. In the House we have an excellent medical practitioner who tells us, "Look out. You are a stone overweight. Take some exercise and watch your diet, otherwise you will be in trouble." However, for the great mass of people such provisions are not available. Too often, the first time that people go to see a doctor he will say something like this, "What a pity. If only you had come to me a year or 18 months ago, we might have been able to do something about it, but sadly it is too late now and I am afraid that you will have to live with the consequences of failing to take advice." But that advice was never given because those people could not afford to take it. The interest is there, but sadly there is no provision.
The Minister will know that last year we ran an experiment in Bournemouth over five weekends with the Health Education Council and the Sports Council. It was a great success—500 people took part and most came back some three months later, having taken advice both on diet and exercise. It is a great pity that the Health Education Council could not afford to follow that up. It is now left to private companies such as BUPA to go out into the field with their teams, go round the factories and do fitness checks on a smaller scale than the major ones, taking 20 or 25 minutes. However, at least those companies are reaching a wider audience.
I refer further to the role of private companies. Mention has been made of company sports fields. We should recognise as fact that there is a changing pattern of provision of and need for sporting facilities. Some 25 years ago most companies worked a five-and-a-half-day week. At 12 o'clock on a Saturday the company would close and, if employees wished, they could go to a sports ground which had been provided by the company and participate in sport for the afternoon. It was a perfectly normal thing for them to do. Round London and in the major towns these "old style" sports grounds exist in great numbers, but because of the changing pattern of involvement they have become white elephants and are not required in the same way.
Such grounds represent valuable real estate for companies and shareholders. I do not share the view that it is incumbent upon private companies just to stay in the business of keeping sports grounds open, when no one else is prepared to back them up. There can be no blame on companies if they try to obtain planning permission for those grounds. However, what we really need is a major campaign to advise on possible alternatives to straight building development. I know that the Minister is dealing with that. I hope that the matter will be given greater urgency in future, because unless action is taken we shall lose valuable sports sites to building.


We want much greater joint usage by the general public and company employees, with positive financial input from both the Sports Council and private companies. The business expansion scheme could provide a tremendous amount of capital for grounds that fall within that category.
Massive sporting and recreational facilities are administered within the public sector. In many cases joint usage is working well and increasing year by year. Most local authorities make the point all the time that they are firmly behind that policy of joint usage. They want school playing field facilities to be used at the weekends. However, the trouble is that that is not always followed up by the headmaster or headmistress of the school, who tend to look upon school playing fields as their personal domain and do not want the general public spoiling it at the weekends. There are problems in joint usage, such as supervision at weekends and holidays, but progress could be made and there could be greater usage if the will existed.
I return to my starting point that prevention is better than cure. So much could be done to lower the incidence not only of heart disease but of many other sicknesses directly related to unfitness. More people need to be made aware that physical fitness is not just an end in itself, but brings in its train a more rewarding and happier life. That is our task. We have seen how it can be done in the United States and how we could cut back on the incidence of heart disease. Let us follow through on the lines indicated by the Minister.
My final word is to the Minister. I thank him, on behalf of all of us who are involved in sport in any shape or form, for the work that he is doing overseas. If we are to obtain greater recognition for sport in this country, we must show those who are not very interested that there is an export market for people who train overseas students and for our sporting gear. My hon. Friend has done a great job. I ask him to keep it up.

Mr. Tom Pendry: I have been squeezed out of the debate once again. I remember speaking on this subject some years ago. The then Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell), spoke for a long time. The trouble is that he speaks so much sense that one has to forgive him, but because he speaks for such a long time many people are squeezed out of such debates. I shall be brief, as I do not wish to cut the time available to my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham).
I congratulate the hon. Member for Leicestershire, North-West (Mr. Ashby) on introducing this subject for debate, because he has done the House a great service. In the 14 years that I have been a Member, there have been only 15 debates on this subject—most because of Back-Bench initiative. There have been 10 Adjournment debates, three debates during Government time, one debate during an Opposition Supply day and one private Member's motion in 1970. I hope that the business managers will recognise the importance of this subject and give more time, especially to Back Benchers, to make contributions on this important issue. I look forward to hearing the remarks of the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State and my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland.

Dr. John Cunningham: I congratulate the hon. Member for Leicestershire, North-West (Mr. Ashby) on giving us the opportunity to debate issues that are important to millions of people—the participants and spectators who enjoy sport so much. The hon. Gentleman cited statistics on sport and participation. He might have said also that about 11 per cent. of all television time is taken up with the presentation of sport. The hon. Gentleman was right to stress the need for the House to face these issues more frequently. I agree with the hon. Gentleman and with my hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Pendry).
In introducing the debate, the hon. Member for Leicestershire, North-West complained that the Department of Education and Science has no strategy for sport. I believe that he said also that the same was true of the Department of the Environment and the Department of Employment. It is important to make the point that, if we are to look more thoroughly at the way in which we approach sport policy, it should be done on an independent departmental basis. Clearly, Government Departments have a role to play. I wish the hon. Member for Lewisham, East (Mr. Moynihan) and his colleagues well in representing Britain in the Olympic games in Los Angeles.

Mr. Tony Banks: I have not had the opportunity to add my felicitations to the hon. Member for Lewisham, East (Mr. Moynihan). I am sure that my hon. Friend will extend his good wishes also to Mr. Ken Livingstone's secretary, Sue Bailey, who will be the cox on the women's boat.

Dr. Cunningham: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for drawing my attention to that young lady. The Opposition wish all the British participants well in Los Angeles.
One of Britain's significant contributions to the world has been organised sport — its invention and the codification of the rules of many sports. Many people—this disappointment has been reflected in the debate—recognise that all is not well in many of our sports. It is a matter of record that Britain is falling behind many other nations in terms of performance in team and individual sports. One of the reasons for that is the fact that other countries have a far more systematic approach to what might be described as a national leisure policy. Britain is possibly the only major industrialised country that does riot have such an approach to sport and recreation.
The 1984 Henley centre report, which made a number of forecasts and a valuable contribution to debate on the se issues and the patterns of leisure, predicted that greater demands would be placed on sport and leisure facilities because of longer annual holidays, a shorter working week, earlier retirement, more part-time working and, inevitably, but importantly, a high and apparently permament level of unemployment. The report predicted that there would be a significant increase in active outdoor pursuits and indoor sports. Spending by individuals on leisure activities accounts for 27 per cent. of consumer spending, which is equivalent to almost 8 per cent. of GNP, or £36 billion per annum. That demand and expenditure seem set to grow.
I shall examine briefly how the Opposition think the Government are coping with sport and what the Government should be doing to produce better performances in sport recreation. I echo the continents made by a number of participants in the debate that it is


wrong for educational sports facilities to be sold in present circumstances. It is unfortunate that the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Macfarlane), the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, should have introduced the circular outlining such sales when he was Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science. I regret the fact that the Government and the Prime Minister saw fit to downgrade the job of Minister for Sport when they took office in 1979. I should prefer to see the hon. Gentleman as a Minister of State.
I emphasise the need for joint action across Government Departments to achieve better co-ordination in sports policy. In the past few years, there has been a decline in public expenditure in general and a serious decrease in the Sports Council's capital spending programme. That is regrettable. In addition, the Government have presided over a cut in expenditure on sport and recreation by local authorities. It is clear that the proposals to abolish the GLC and metropolitan county councils and the legislation on the Rates Act have serious implications for spending by local authorities. It has been pointed out that the Government spend far more on the arts than on sport. I hope that the Under-Secretary of State will give a clear answer on what will take the place of spending by the GLC and metropolitan county councils on this aspect of policy if they are abolished as a result of Government legislation.
The Government have so far failed to answer increasing public demand for a national indoor sports centre and the facilities necessary for ice skating and other sports. In too many sports, there is a lack of facilities for our young people, athletes and sportsmen and sportswomen to enable them to undertake the practice and training that are necessary to match the standards of our competitors.
We await with impatience as well as interest the Government's response to the serious problem of football hooliganism. When I raised the issue of violence in Brussels a few weeks ago with the Under-Secretary of State, we were promised a report. I pointed out that there were clear signs of political involvement by the National Front. Regrettably, that has been confirmed by activities associated with the English football team during its recent tour of South America. The Opposition regard those as disturbing matters and call for the Government's response.
One of the most widely enjoyed sports and recreations and one that has millions of participants—I am involved in it—is angling, which I believe should be taken more seriously. The Control of Pollution Act 1974 could be used in a number of ways to improve facilities for anglers. I believe that there should be more access to waterways, not only for anglers but for those who use the lakes and ponds and participate in water sports.
Surely the example set by a number of local authorities —for example, Nottingham's sponsorship of Torvill and Dean, the development by Gateshead metropolitan borough of the Gateshead stadium, and its support for Brendan Foster which produced the massive response to athletics on Tyneside which led, ultimately, to the success of Steve Cram, and the GLC's support of the Crystal Palace — shows how well we can do things given the determination and the resources.

Mr. John Golding: Will my hon. Friend put to the Government that we want a national angling licence? We want to get away from the present regional system.

Dr. Cunningham: I am sure that the Minister has heard what my hon. Friend said.
The Gleneagles agreement has come to the fore in a number of speeches. I refute the arguments advanced at considerable length by the hon. Member for Luton, North (Mr. Carlisle), who supported the South African Government's desperate attempts to obtain respectability in international sport. It is worth reminding the House that sports bodies decided to isolate South Africa, and we endorse what the Prime Minister said a few months ago in New Delhi about the importance of the Gleneagles agreement for the Commonwealth. I hope that the Minister will assure the House again tonight that it is the Government's intention to ensure that the spirit and the letter of the agreement are upheld by the Government. That was the declaration to which the Prime Minister put her signature in New Delhi.
The Prime Minister's attitude on that issue contrasts markedly with the approach that she took, and which the hon. Member for Luton, North said he supported at the time, to the boycott of the Moscow olympiad in 1980. I agree that that boycott has led to the tit-for-tat response by the Soviet bloc, which I regret and deplore, towards the Los Angeles olympiad.
I believe that we need to do much more for coaching. Can we say that the majority of children, including children from the black and ethnic communities in the inner cities and the conurbations, have adequate opportunities to participate in and have coaching and training for sport? Many have no opportunity to participate.
I agree with what my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell) said about sponsorship in sport. Unlike him, I should include the role of the cigarette companies. We should study the disturbing developments there. Is it not time—

Mr. John Carlisle: What disturbing developments?

Dr. Cunningham: The persistent and growing association of cigarette smoking and the sponsorship of sport. I call that disturbing.
Is it not time that we examined sport and taxation so that the major spectator sports can plan for the future? Could not amateur sports be given a special status to protect them from VAT or corporation tax? Special grants or rate relief could be given to genuinely open, community-based sports clubs. A new and clearer defintion of rights of access to water, which I mentioned, and to the countryside, in keeping with the increasing demand for outdoor pursuits and leisure activities, should be considered.
The 1980 Government-inspired Olympic boycott, the sale of community sports grounds, the turning of a blind eye towards South African involvement in British sport, and the failure so far to deal adequately with hooliganism and violence in sport, are a wide range of important issues that I have tried to cover quickly because I want to leave the Minister as much time as I can to reply. I do not apologise for raising those issues, and the threat to existing levels of sport which results from the Government's policies towards local councils.
The leisure industries as a whole have a record of expansion in participation, spending and numbers employed. Sport and recreation have increased employment by 76 per cent. since the 1960s. A national leisure policy encompassing the arts, sport and some element of tourism seems worth serious consideration. There need to be Government structural changes to cope with that and a properly managed local government investment plan to extend facilities.
I say with some feeling, coming from and representing a constituency in the north, that far too much of what happens in sport and recreation takes place in London or the metropolitan area. We should devolve more away from the capital. Recently a senior executive of the Sports Council said:
Government policy is simply 20 years behind society, the leisure society has arrived without being properly announced or recognised.
We hope that the Government will begin to recognise some of these issues and act accordingly.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Neil Macfarlane): This has been a most constructive and wide-ranging debate. I echo the sentiments expressed by many hon. Members by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Leicestershire, North-West (Mr. Ashby) on introducing a topic which, as we all agree, does not always receive as much time as we should like.
It is clear that I shall not be able to reply to every point that hon. Members have made, but I hope they will understand that I shall write to them as quickly as possible on the many points that have been made.
It is interesting to note that my hon. Friend suggested that the last time we had a debate on the subject was in 1974, but the hon. Member for Heywood and Middleton (Mr. Callaghan), who is most diligent in these matters, initiated a debate on leisure in 1980. On that earlier occasion my predecessor and hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) brought to the attention of the House the Government's awareness and interest in the needs of sport and recreation at a time when leisure was increasing. The intervening years have seen that interest translated into continued and positive action.
I also join those many hon. Members who congratulated my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, East (Mr. Moyniham) who will be winging his way towards the west coast of America as a member of the British Olympic team. I wish him and, as the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) said, everyone who is participating—including the GLC leader's secretary—well.
I should like to take the opportunity to point out that many people who will be going to the Olympic games will have received funds from the Sports Aid Foundation. I should like to pay tribute not just to the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell) who set it up in the mid-1970s, but to Paul Zetter, who has done that thankless but rewarding task for over eight years.
The Government have fully accepted the importance of sport and recreation in today's society. The wording of the motion on the Order Paper echoes the sentiments of what we are trying to do. We have accepted and defended the independence of sport and the governing bodies. As hon. Members have said, unlike Governments in some

countries, we do not seek to dominate the governing bodies of sport. Our task is with and through the Sports Council. We aim to foster and encourage the provision of opportunities for active recreation for all our people; to assist in the development of individual talent; and to protect the freedom of sport and sports people to develop within the context of their own aspirations.
We must also encourage the expansion of the many companies that provide essential facilities, equipment and services for sport. The sports industry is becoming a major growth industry, as hon. Members on both sides of the House have acknowledged. It is providing a growing number of jobs and rapidly expanding overseas markets. That is why I have led a number of delegations to the middle east, and should like to do so elsewhere if I had more time.
There is undoubtedly enormous potential for the construction industry, for all-weather pitches, coaching schemes and the selling of software. It is refreshing to note, from the recent trip that I made, that it is clear that our reputation is still held supreme in many countries.
The Government have the Sports Council as their agency to fulfil many objectives. The Sports Council was created by royal charter in the early 1970s under a Conservative Government. The charter embodies, protects and defines the council's independence. I ask the council, as my Department's agency, to undertake particular tasks or policies. For example, my initiatives to seek more community use of existing sports facilities in the private and public sectors are being carried forward by the Sports Council. At my request it carried out an investigation into the losses of recreational land. It concluded that local authorities were in the main positive about preserving recreational land, and that the overall gains for sport and recreation were greater than the losses. The nine regional councils for sport and recreation are monitoring this and will report to me as necessary.
My hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, West (Mr. Spicer) mentioned the important element that the companies of yesteryear provided acres of sports facilities for their employees. Perhaps nowadays those facilities are not in such great demand. Many people may prefer to join other clubs or to go to some of our 800 leisure centres. I have written to the chairmen of the 100 top companies and nationalised industries and asked them to identify the amount of sporting facilities that they have and to find out how we can increase usage. I am pleased to report that at least 80 of them wrote back positively. The Sports Council is pursuing the matter both centrally and locally. It is a most important dimension. Our sole purpose is to encourage more and more facilities to be brought into greater public use—to make the most and best of what we have.

Mr. Freud: Did the Minister write to the Leader of the House on that matter, and, if he did, what answer did he receive?

Mr. Macfarlane: No, I have not written to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House on that matter.
I asked the Sports Council to look at the organisation of athletics. As the right hon. Member for Small Heath will know from his previous responsibility for sport, there are 19 governing bodies of athletics, not five. The Sports Council examimed their role and organisation. Again, it is the arm's length principle. It is clear that Ministers


cannot corral or tell governing bodies what to do. We must ensure that athletic associations understand their problems and get the best value for money. I hope that all those responsible for organising athletics will make a concerted effort to become one unified body.
The Sports Council is independent, and makes its own decisions on how grant-in-aid is spent. It has funded, grant-aided or loaned money for not far short of 1,000 projects in the last financial year. However, like any other agency involved in Government policy, some important policy matters are properly handled by me and my Department. Two examples have already been given.
If the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Pendry) had not been charitable enough to sit down after two and a half minutes he, as chairman of the all-party football committee, would have majored on the subject of football hooliganism. The Government attach the utmost importance to the matter. A wretched minority-1 per cent. — are spoiling a great national game. Some so-called supporters who travel abroad are a nuisance and have nothing to do with football. They are a menace. The report that I promised the House some weeks ago will soon be to hand. It has also involved the Home Office, the Foreign Office and the Department of Transport. I took the matter to the Council of Ministers and early this year got ratification for a united approach throughout Europe on the importance of co-ordination, segregation in grounds, ticket distribution and the implementation of the European Football Association rules. We hope that the collaboration and co-operation of all those involved will continue 100 per cent. That is why, whenever there are major matches, my officials or I will meet the chairmen of the clubs or the chairmen of the Football Association and Football League and discuss the matter.
Last year I wrote to the 92 professional clubs with the full approval of the former member for Nottingham, East, Mr. Dunnett, president of the Football League, outlining a blueprint. In 1981, I set up a liaison group. The liaison group has met six times in the past two years. We have chaired the meetings jointly with the Football Association. That liaison group continues to exist. As I said, the liaison group was set up in 1981 after three countries in the United Kingdom qualified for the World cup, and it has been successful.
The Government are totally committed to the Commonwealth declaration on apartheid in sport. That commitment was reaffirmed by the Prime Minister at the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting in New Delhi, for the third time in six years. Our obligations under the agreement are to seek to discourage sporting contacts with South Africa and to withhold any form of support for such contacts. Only Governments can breach that statement. We believe that we meet our obligations. We also met our obligations over the Rugby Football Union tour of South Africa. We discouraged and tried to dissuade the sportsmen, but we could not prevent them from going. The right hon. Member for Small Heath will understand the background to that. We live in a free society, and, rightly, the decision was ultimately for the RFU. However, it went against out strong advice.
I am deeply anxious about the future of Commonwealth sport. Many countries view it with misgiving. We shall

know more about that within the next few weeks as the Commonwealth Games Federation meets to consider the problem.
My Department's work with the Sports Council is regular and frequent. We work closely on strategy and policies, and we advise each other. The Sports Council grant-aids the Central Council of Physical Recreation. That voluntary co-ordinating body does a tremendous job for sport and has a very good history. The Sports Council also supports, to the tune of £5 million, the governing bodies of sport. My officials and the Sports Council are always ready to advise and assist them where we can. There are now 140 governing bodies compared with about 25 some 30 years ago. We provide sport with an open door to the Government and a wider perspective than could be enjoyed by individual bodies or even sport as a whole.
Since 1980 we have doubled the Sports Council's grant to £30 million. Through the urban programme there has been additional support of £20 million, and £3 million has come from derelict land grants. We are now a nation of participators. We were a nation of spectators 25 years ago. Our sole objective is to ensure that there is a good stock of facilities. The Gateshead development is important and underlines the fact that if one encourages local authorities and governing bodies, and if the Government and private sector can join hands to provide pump priming, it can lead to centres of excellence and to a huge increase in success for the region. I stand full square with the right hon. Member for Small Heath when he says that it is important to have a sensible balance of provision throughout the country. I hope he will agree that money must be spent evenly and fairly throughout the country by us, the governing bodies and the regional councils.
I turn to a point which worries many people, and on which the right hon. Gentleman in his excellent report on sponsorship through the Central Council of Physical Recreation touched. Other Departments are also interested in that report, but I cannot tell him when we shall have completed our analysis of it.
We are trying to discover whether we can provide more money for sport. We have just seen a successful fortnight of tennis at Wimbledon. John Lloyd was perhaps our only success, for the second year, and I congratulate him.
Many people are dismayed at the amount of prize money in tennis and other games. They are dismayed at the amount of prize money being offered at the elite end of the games. I have already had a meeting with 10 or 12 major sponsors of sport acting as a catalyst to ensure that a percentage of the money that they put into sport goes to the grass roots.
The hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) does not seem to agree with his right hon. Friend the Member for Small Heath about sponsorship by the drinks and tobacco companies. The right hon. Gentleman negotiated the voluntary tobacco agreement in the mid-1970s, which I updated recently. Many companies are providing a lot of money, but not enough of it reaches the grass roots. It is from there that the champions of the next decade will come. I have obtained some agreement from the chairmen of several companies, which will refresh those parts of the country which have not always been reached in recent years. I hope that it will produce several thousands of pounds for the regions, will be validated by the governing bodies of sport, and will go into those sports where we need success.
The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Mr. Forrester) was right to say that success breeds success. Britain is perhaps among the top three or four countries in athletics. Our athletes have won many gold medals during the past 10 or 15 years, and more and more will come. Many successful athletes have come from the north-east and the west midlands. The success of Swedish and Czechoslovak tennis in recent years is due to the fact that both countries have produced Wimbledon champions during the past decade.
I hope that we can provide increasing funds because we must improve facilities. The key is also to provide money to voluntary organisations, not just put money into the development of vast leisure centres and swimming pools. We have 800 leisure centres and about 900 swimming pools. I want more schemes to be developed, harnessing the voluntary sector, the Manpower Services Commission and the local authorities to find out what we need. The pound-for-pound schemes have been a huge success in Merseyside, Bristol and the north-east. What we have heard today echoes the Government's devotion to sport and recreation as major activities.

It being Seven o'clock, proceedings thereon lapsed, pursuant to Standing Order No. 6 (Arrangement of Public Business).

Orders of the Day — Cable and Broadcasting Bill [Lords]

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

New Clause 2

FRAUDULENTLY RECEIVING CERTAIN PROGRAMMES

' .—(1) A person who dishonestly receives a programme included in a service to which this section applies with intent to avoid payment of any charge applicable to the reception of that programme shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale.

(2) This section and section (Proprietary rights in respect of certain programmes) below apply to—

(a) any cable programme service;
(b) any television or sound broadcasting service provided by the BBC or the IBA; and
(c) any service (other than a television or sound broadcasting service) which consists wholly or mainly in the sending, by means of a telecommunication system, of sounds or visual images or both and is provided for a person providing a service falling within paragraph (a) or (b) above;
and for the purposes of this subsection a service provided for the Welsh Authority, the IBA's subsidiary or a programme contractor shall be treated as provided for the IBA.

(3) Her Majesty may by Order in Council make provision, in the case of any country specified in the Order, for applying this section and section (Proprietary rights in respect of certain programmes) below to—

(a) any service provided in that country which would be a cable programme service if subsection (7) of section 2 above and references in subsection (1) of that section to the United Kingdom were omitted;
(b) any television or sound broadcasting service provided in that country by an organisation constituted in, or under the laws of, that country; and
(c) any service provided in that country (other than a television or sound broadcasting service) which consists wholly or mainly in the sending, by means of a telecommunication system, of sounds or visual images or both and is provided for a person providing a service falling within paragraph (a) or (b) above.

(4) Her Majesty shall not make an Order in Council under subsection (3) above in the case of any country unless Her Majesty is satisfied that provision has been or will be made under the laws of that country whereby adequate protection will be given to persons making charges for programmes included in services falling within subsection (2) above.

(5) Any statutory instrument containing an Order in Council under subsection (3) above shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.'.—[Mr. Hurd.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

7 pm

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Douglas Hurd): I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Paul Dean): With this it will be convenient to discuss Government new clause 3.

Mr. Hurd: The two new clauses deal with the problem of theft. Those who are taking a large commercial risk in offering new services to the public should have the reassurance that a solid legal framework exists within which they can try to ensure that people cannot enjoy the benefits of their services without paying for them. When we came to consider the existing safeguards that were available to the providers of pay television services, we discovered that in the case of cable they were only partial,


and in the case of satellites almost non-existent. That is why my noble Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State gave a commitment in another place on 2 February that during the passage of the Bill the Government would introduce proposals designed to forestall the growth of cable and satellite piracy. I am sorry that it has taken rather longer than we hoped, but it is a remarkably difficult legal problem.
New clauses 2 and 3 attempt to deal with those sorts of dishonest activities which the Theft Act 1968 and the Copyright Act 1956 do not cover. We considered whether we could build on the existing law, but we decided that the straightforward thing to do would be to create two new free-standing provisions in the Bill, one to extend the criminal law and the other to extend the civil law. New clause 2 creates a new criminal offence and establishes the scope of the services to which both the offence and the civil provisions in new clause 3 apply.
New clause 3 contains the more far-reaching provisions which are especially important if we are to succeed in heading off this new piracy before it becomes established. Experience in other areas suggests that it is essential to have effective powers which the courts can use against the suppliers and distributors before the material gets into the hands of the ultimate user. Criminal sanctions are not the best answer, because enforcement takes time and normally deals with unlawful activity that has already happened. Alongside the criminal provision in new clause 2, this new clause provides a comprehensive set of remedies available to an aggrieved broadcaster or cable operator in the civil courts. Where someone imports, sells or lets apparatus that is designed to defraud the aggrieved broadcaster or cable operator of payment for his services, or publishes information that is intended for that purpose, the aggrieved person can seek an injunction, damages and any other appropriate relief from the civil courts.
The new clauses and the amendments which flow from them introduce a set of safeguards which will enable the providers of pay services to combat the theft which could fatally undermine their business.

Mr. Denis Howell: I support the new clause, but I take this opportunity to tell the Minister that all these amendments should not appear at the Report stage of such a Bill. As I said in Committee, the Bill now before the House is completely different from the one that was debated on Second Reading. Indeed, it is Bill No. 4, 5 or 6. We now have authorities for cable and authorities for DBS. The lives of all the independent television companies have been extended without proper safeguards for the public interest. Clause 47 provides a new national radio network, although that has not been explained to the House in detail. Now on Report we have two entire pages of amendments. Altogether, the Government made 200 amendments to the Bill, and few hon. Members will have experience of a Bill being so completely changed during its passage through the House.
In addition, the Bill might be a complete charade, because since the Home Secretary introduced his proposals for cable and DBS the Chancellor of the Exchequer has removed the capital allowances on which the cable companies had made their calculations. The result is that they are reconsidering their position. It is doubtful whether

these provisions will see the light of day or whether they will be financially viable. I hope that the Minister will say something about that later.
I have protested about the number of amendments to the Bill. The House should not have been treated like this by the Government. However, I support the new clause and, with a view to getting through all the amendments in a reasonable time, I shall not duplicate what the Minister said.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 31

PROPRIETARY RIGHTS IN RESPECT OF CERTAIN PROGRAMMES

. — (1) Every person who makes charges for the reception of programmes included in a service to which this section applies shall be entitled to the proprietary rights conferred by this section.

(2) The rights conferred by this section are infringed by the manufacture, importation, sale or letting on hire of any apparatus or device which is designed or adapted, or the publication of any information which is calculated, to enable or assist persons to receive the programmes without payment.

(3) Subject to subsection (5) below, infringements of the rights conferred by this section on any person shall be actionable at the suit of that person; and in any proceedings for such an infringement all such relief, by way of damages, injunction, interdict, account or otherwise, shall be available as is available in any corresponding proceedings in respect of infringements of other proprietary rights.

(4) Where rights conferred by this section on any person have been infringed by the manufacture, importation, sale or letting on hire of any apparatus or device, then, subject to subsection

(5) below, that person shall be entitled in respect of the conversion by any other person of the apparatus or device to all such relief, by way of an order for its delivery or otherwise, as he would be entitled to if he were its owner and had been its owner since the time of the infringement.

(5) A person shall not be entitled to recover damages from another person by virtue of this section if, at the time of the infringement or conversion, that other person was not aware, and had no reasonable grounds for suspecting, that the rights conferred by this section on the first-mentioned person would be or had been infringed.

(6) Section 72 of the Supreme Court Act 1981 and section 94A of the Judicature (Northern Ireland) Act 1978 (withdrawal of privilege against incrimination of self or spouse in certain proceedings) shall each have effect as if the proceedings to which subsection (1) of that section applies included proceedings in the High Court brought by virtue of this section.

(7) In the application of this section to Scotland, for any reference to the conversion by any person of any apparatus or device there shall be substituted a reference to an intromission by any person with any apparatus or device. '.—[Mr. Hurd.]

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 4

OFFENCES BY BODIES CORPORATE

.—(1) Where a body corporate is guilty of an offence under this Act and that offence is proved to have been committed with the consent or connivance of, or to be attributable to any neglect on the part of, any director, manager, secretary or other similar officer of the body corporate or any person who was purporting to act in any such capacity he, as well as the body corporate, shall be guilty of that offence and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly.

(2) Where the affairs of a body corporate are managed by its members, subsection (1) above shall apply in relation to the acts and defaults of a member in connection with his functions of management as if he were a director of the body corporate.'. —[Mr. Hurd.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Hurd: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Government new clause 5 and Government amendments Nos. 1, 5, 18A, 23, 34, 92 to 99, 139, 142, 143, 145, 146, 156, 159, 167, 173, 181, 183, and 184.

Mr. Hurd: In response to the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell), I entirely concede that the House is confronted with many Government new clauses and amendments. To a large extent, although not completely, this is a result of discussions in another place and in Committee, and I shall illustrate that point as I go through the Government's proposals.
The amendments and new clauses under discussion stem from a debate in the other place, where it was legitimately pointed out that there were gaps in the existing law, which did not cover the theft of cable and satellite services. The right hon. Gentleman will agree that I have done my best to keep him and other interested Members as fully informed as I could of the progress on this issue, but I accept that there are some indigestible morsels here.

Mr. Denis Howell: None of my criticisms was personally directed at the Minister, who in Committee was as helpful as he could be—indeed, he still is—but I am sure he appreciates my point of principle: that it is wrong to extend one Bill into three or four Bills in the manner adopted by the Government.

Mr. Hurd: I understand the right hon. Gentleman's point.
These new clauses and amendments flow directly from the new clauses which the House has just approved, which straddle the cable and DBS provisions in the Bill. As a result, they will appear in part III. That necessitates the rearrangement of other parts of the Bill. The new clause and amendments which we are now discussing introduce no further new policy. They are simply consequential on the theft arrangements which the House has just approved.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 5

GENERAL INTERPRETATION

'(1) Unless the contrary intention appears, expressions used in this Act which are also used in the 1981 Act have the same meanings as in that Act.

In this Act and, unless the contrary intention appears, in any enactment amended by this Act—

 "the 1956 Act" means the Copyright Act 1956;
"the 1981 Act" means the Broadcasting Act 1981;
"the 1984 Act" means the Telecommunications Act 1984;
"cable programme service" has the meaning given by section 2(1) above;
"the IBA's subsidiary" means the subsidiary mentioned in section 12(2) of the 1981 Act;
"licensable cable programme service" has the same meaning as "licensable service" has in Part I of this Act; "licensed", in relation to a cable programme service, means licensed under section 4 above;
"programme", in relation to a cable programme service, includes any item included in that service;
"standard scale" has the meaning given by section 75 of the Criminal Justice Act 1982;
"statutory maximum" has the meaning given by section 74 of that Act;

"telecommunications service" and "telecommunications system" have the same meanings as in the 1984 Act.' —[Mr. Hurd.]

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 6

DIRECTIONS IN THE INTERESTS OF PUBLIC SERVICE BROADCASTING

'.—(1) This section applies where —

(a) the broadcasts in a television or sound broadcasting service are made from a place outside the United Kingdom for reception in the United Kingdom; and
(b) programmes are proposed to be broadcast in that service by the reception and retransmission (whether immediately or after an interval) of material sent by means of a telecommunication system licensed under Part II of the 1984 Act.

(2) if it appears to the Secretary of State, after consultation with both broadcasting authorities, that it is requisite or expedient to do so in the interests of public service broadcasting in the United Kingdom, he may by a direction under this section prohibit any person from sending material either for programmes generally, for programmes of a particular description or for particular programmes.

(3) Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (2) above, the Secretary of State may give a direction under this section if it appears to him, after such consultation as aforesaid, that any of the programmes—

(a) would consist of or include the whole or any part of listed or protected events; or
(b) would be such that they could not be included in a television or sound broadcasting service provided by the IBA.

(4) A direction under this section shall be published in such manner as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.

(5) A person who knowingly contravenes a direction under this section shall be liable—

(a) on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum.;
(b) on conviction on indictment, to a fine.

(6) Without prejudice to subsection (5) above, compliance with a direction under this section shall be enforceable by civil proceedings by the Crown for an injunction or interdict or for any other appropriate relief.

(7) So much of section 14(10) of the 1956 Act as relates to the place from which a broadcast is to be treated as made shall apply for the purposes of this section as it applies for the purposes of that Act.

(8) In this section—
broadcasting authority" means the BBC or the IBA;
listed event" has the same meaning as in section 14 above;
material" means sounds or visual images or both;
programme" includes teletext transmission;
protected event" means a sporting or other event which, in the opinion of the Secretary of State, is one of a series of similar events the whole or any part of which—

(a) it was at the commencement of this section the practice of a broadcasting authority to broadcast; and
(b) but for the acquisition of rights to include the whole or any part of events in that series in external broadcasting services, it would still be the practice of that authority to broadcast:
and for the purposes of this subsection anything broadcast by either of the broadcasting authorities shall be treated as broadcast by each of them.'.—[Mr. Hurd.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Hurd: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may discuss Government amendment No. 140.

Mr. Hurd: This new clause stems directly from an anxiety felt by independent broadcasters as a result of the new and more liberal telecommunications regime recently approved by Parliament. It also stems from the Government's decision to allow Radio Luxembourg a landline by which material sent from the United Kingdom and broadcast back to the United Kingdom is subject only to the laws and regulations of Luxembourg rather than to the regulations and laws here. Those anxieties were strongly reflected in our discussions in Committee.
As quickly became clear, the anxieties expressed go beyond concern over the plans of one particular radio station which has been competing with British radio without restriction for many years. The fear was that the door would open through which others would push and that the competition which might result would be widespread, unfair and destructive.
These arguments for some protection found favour with the Committee, and I then outlined the steps which the Government were ready to take. No text of the Government proposals was ready for the Committee, and naturally it decided to pass a new clause, now clause 48, to mark its determination that effective action should be taken.
As I explained to the Committee, clause 48 contains some technical defects and would not work effectively to provide the protection that was sought. This new clause embodies the Government's proposals, which we believe are the sensible way of dealing with the problem. The Committee agreed that there should be a power to prevent abuse of this freedom in a way that would seriously damage public service broadcasting in this country. It would not be right to try to subject the activities of foreign broadcasters operating in this country to some sort of day-by-day supervision. Our own broadcasters are entrusted with the relatively limited resources of the spectrum, and are required to exercise their stewardship in the general public interest.
However, foreign broadcasters operating in this country normally simply seek to do business with one of our national telecommunications operators so that they can send material to their own foreign transmitters, where their broadcasters are subject to the framework of rules of the country in question. To license them in some way in this country would be hard to reconcile with the stand that Britain has always taken on the free flow of information. There would be major practical difficulties as well.
We would not want a situation in which the broadcasting organisations of one of our neighbours, each time they sent a live interview from London for inclusion in their own radio or television services, were subject to supervision by a United Kingdom authority because those services would be receivable here.
We came to the conclusion that to meet the anxieties that have been expressed we needed not a system that required everything to be supervised but a reserve power that could be invoked in particular circumstances where the interests of our own broadcasting services were clearly at stake. Thus, in the normal course of events there would be no regulation or bureacracy, but in an exceptional case the right steps could be taken.
7.15 pm
There was much discussion in Committee about who should be entrusted with this power. Different views were expressed. I entirely accept the points that were made

about the dangers of ministerial involvement in programme content. That is not the sort of territory in which Ministers ought normally to have any place. The new clause is drafted with that in mind.
We came to the conclusion that if there is to be such a reserve power it should rest with the Government and with my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary. Successive Governments, rather than the broadcasters, have until recently operated the longstanding restrictions on the provision of landline facilities from this country for certain foreign broadcasters. Therefore, what we are proposing is not new. Having looked at the other possibilities, we are satisfied that they are not appealing for one reason of another.
We are talking about a reserve power which is to be exercised in the interests of public service broadcasting generally. That makes it difficult to give it to one of our broadcasting authorities rather than the other, even if it were prepared to exercise such a power. If national broadcasting policy is at stake, that should be a matter for the relevant Minister of the Crown who is accountable to this House for his actions.
A second consideration in our minds was that anyone exercising this power would need to take account of our international relations and obligations. I have already mentioned our commitment to the free flow of information.
Thirdly—and this is the strongest argument—any reserve power clearly needs to be backed up with the possibility of sanctions, and it would be wrong in principle if prosecutions in our courts arose as a result of a decision by one of our broadcasting authorities.
A particular interest has legitimately asked for some protection, which can be achieved only by Parliament granting the power which could lead to criminal and civil proceedings. We accept that this is a reasonable request, but we do not think that the Government can shuffle off that responsibility. If the power and responsibility are justified, the Government should carry them out themselves, and explain and defend at home and abroad what they are doing and why. That is the straightforward way of dealing with this matter.
New clause 6 provides for the Secretary of State to have a power to issue directions when it seems to him requisite or expedient to do so in the interests of public service broadcasting in this country. Before exercising the power he must consult both the BBC and IBA. We have inserted that provision since our disussion in Committee.
Subsection (3) cites two particular instances where it might be in the interests of public service broadcasting for the power to be invoked. The first is where there is a risk that our domestic services might be deprived of a sporting or other event which they have normally shown because it had been bought up by a foreign station for re-broadcasting here. The second instance is where the broadcaster sends material from here which would not be allowed over our own public service channels. Directions do not have to be confined to particular types of programmes. If an overseas broadcaster wanted to set up shop here and send out the whole of his service for immediate re-transmission back to this country, it might be that a general direction would be in order on the ground that the service as a whole was operated to the detriment of the more closely regulated domestic channels.
There must be a sanction, of course. We have proposed a dual approach. Subsection (5) creates a new offence.
Subsection (6) permits civil proceedings which would enable the courts to issue injunctions in advance of the damage being done. This is important. I believe that the sanctions are adequate, especially in view of the interest of the telecommunications operator in not being found to aid and abet anyone to send material unlawfully.
Once this power was seen to exist I hope that it would rarely, if ever, need to be used. We do not see a case for preventing organisations from having a landline to send news, current affairs items and interviews from this country. That is not the mischief that was feared. The fear is that the landline might enable a foreign organisation in effect to masquerade as a British broadcasting organisation but without the controls and regulations that apply to such British organisations.
We all agreed in Committee that some safeguard was needed against that possible mischief. We have made a major effort to find an answer to a genuine anxiety. I hope that the House will agree to it.

Mr. Gerald Bermingham: Those members of the Standing Committee who supported the new clause which has become clause 48 had very much in mind, for varying reasons, the protection of the quality and standards of our broadcasting. It was against that background that many of my right hon. and hon. Friends and I were prepared to subscribe to the clause. The Government have now introduced on Report new clause 6 and, whereas some of its contents will find favour with those of us who supported the original amendment, it leaves a number of others of us saddened that the Government did not have the courage to go all the way to protect regulated broadcasting. The Government have sought to keep a reserve power which in itself is a weaker form of regulation than regulation itself.
The question at the heart of this is whether we are moving steadily towards deregulated broadcasting. Many of us would view deregulation with some concern. I accept what the Minister said about outflow broadcasting—broadcasting to a foreign country of interviews and other material originating here—being subject to the rules and regulations of the country of receipt, but that does not affect the problem which many of us have in mind, which is the programme made here, broadcast or landlined out and then rebroadcast in by television or back through a cable system. In that case, it is the view of many of my hon. Friends that the standards and regulations which apply to public service broadcasting generally here must equally be applicable to that form of broadcasting.
The Government will find that we shall not oppose new clause 6 at the end of the debate, but we put it on record at this stage that we do do not think that the powers taken by the Government are adequate to deal with the potential mischief that can arise from the activities of those who seek to deregulate the whole of broadcasting. In deregulation will lie a diminution in the quality and standards of our broadcasting, which have become the envy of the world. Many of us would fear any step which sought to interfere with the high standards which we have enjoyed heretofore.

Mr. John Gorst: I do not disagree with the hon. Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham) about standards, but there is another aspect, which is the viability of the system that we enjoy, and its

viability would be affected considerably if live advertisements left this country and were rebroadcast simultaneously.
I hope very much that my right hon. Friend will be able to assure the House that the words in subsection (2),
material either for programmes generally, for programmes of a particular description or for particular programmes,
mean not only ordinary programme material for information or entertainment purposes, but advertising material.
It is important that the finances upon which our system depends are not eroded or undermined as a result of people broadcasting a much higher percentage of advertising per hour than is allowed to out stations. I hope that my right hon. Friend will be able to reassure the House about that.
What bothers me about the way that my right hon. Friend has chosen to handle the problem is that he has decided to have what he calls a reserve power. I wonder who will take the initiative to trigger off the exercise of that power, especially when the judgment will be that, "1 am going bust," says director A, or, "I might go bust in six weeks or six months," and the Home Secretary of the day decides, on the advice of his officials, that he would prefer to wait and see because of all the international implications of using his reserve power. By that time it will be too late.
Had my right hon. Friend taken the line which I recommended in Committee that one of the broadasting authorities—either the Cable Authority or IBA—should be monitoring this, we could have expected a more sensitive approach to seeing whether the viability of our public service broadcasting, commercial or otherwise, was genuinely affected. I should like an assurance from my right hon. Friend on this sensitive score of whether the power here as a reserve power will be used soon enough should the situation arise.
I still have the objection that I voiced in Committee. The Home Secretary is the arbiter in these matters. However, I concede that the new clause is obviously more comprehensive than clause 48. For that reason, if for no other, I do not propose to cross swords with my right hon Friend, but I hope that he can give the House an assurance about the worry that I have expressed.

Mr. Tim Brinton: At the outset of this debate I ought perhaps to declare my interests. I am a consultant to the British Videograms Association and Communications Strategy. I am a director of Airtime Publicity (Newsflash) Ltd. and of East and Mid-Kent community radio stations. I should perhaps add that none of these institutions has any direct interest in the matters arising in the Bill—nor has any of them approached me —but, as they are media-related companies, it is right to put it on the record straight away. My interest primarily is having been a broadcaster on film and television since 1951, so it is rather all-embracing.

Mr. Gorst: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. May I also do what I should have done at the outset? I declared my interest in Committee, but I should also declare now an interest in both Capital Radio and Ladbrokes.

Mr. Brinton: I intervene briefly to welcome my right hon. Friend's attempt to push a temporary cork into a very fizzy bottle. I do not anticipate the cork staying in place for too long, but it will at least give considerable comfort


to those who faced, and continue to face until the Bill is passed, the threat of what they regard as totally unfair competition.
I, too, query the word "programme" in subsection (2). It seems to me that that does not necessarily cover the broadcasting of commercial advertisements.
I also worry about the word "broadcasts" in subsection (1)(a). Where does a broadcast begin? The system, as my right hon. Friend knows as a result of the Telecommunications Bill, is that stations such as Radio Luxembourg can initiate the sound of a broadcast in Britain through a microphone or mechanical contrivance down a land line to a foreign country and then transmit it back to Britain. If the word "broadcasts" in legal terms covers the act of transmission, I am happy with that little piece of drafting. If the broadcast is the noise that emits from a studio or some other location, that is probably not apt.
Concern has been expressed, as my right hon. Friend has recognised, that the Home Secretary should deal with matters of good taste and judgment of material to be broadcast. I suppose that we have to accept that this is the way chosen and I hope that it will work without too much intrusion.
I started by referring to a temporary cork in a fizzy bottle. If one considers the advance of technology these days, it is hard to understand how we can prevent a huge growth of little community radio stations and big stations in space, firing off broadcasts to us, both radio and television, in about 10 or 15 years' time. I, like everyone in the House, want to protect the British standards of broadcasting, but we will have to move towards some form of deregulation for some parts of it, and possibly radio will be the first customer.

Mr. Hurd: I agree that there has been a good deal of fizz in this bottle. Sometimes, listening to some of the things that have been said, although not in the House or in Committee, I felt that we were being accused of inventing Radio Luxembourg. Nevertheless, we have accepted the need for a power. I can reassure my hon. Friends about advertising. The word "programme" includes advertisement throughout the Bill and indeed in the Broadcasting Act 1981, except when specifically indicated otherwise. For example, new clause 5, which we have just approved, says:
'programme', in relation to a cable programme service, includes any item included in that service".
That is straightforward. Certainly advertising would be included within the scope of the power.
I imagine that the procedure would be that any person or organisation which felt aggrieved by a development would inform my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary, either through the IBA or directly, and my right hon. and learned Friend would then have to consult the IBA and the BBC under the Bill before he used the power.
I take the point that there may be occasions when, if the power is to be effective, it has to be promptly used and we must clearly organise ourselves to that end. The point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham (Mr. Brinton) about "broadcasting" is similarly covered. It has the wider interpretation that he prefers.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 8

INCLUSION OF SOUND RECORDINGS AND CINEMATOGRAPH FILMS IN CABLE PROGRAMMES

.—(1) At the end of paragraph (c) of section 12(5) of the 1956 Act (copyright in sound recordings) there shall be added the words "or including it in a cable programme".

(2) In section 13(5) of that Act (copyright in cinematograph films) for paragraph (d) there shall be substituted the following paragraph—
(d) including the film in a cable programme".

(3) After section 40 of that Act there shall be inserted the following section—

Inclusion of sound recordings and cinematograph films in cable programmes.

40A.—(1) Where a cable programme is sent and a person, by the reception of that programme, causes a sound recording to be heard in public, he does not thereby infringe the copyright (if any) in that recording under section 12 of this Act.

(2) Where a cable programme is sent and the programme is an authorised programme, any person who, by the reception of the programme, causes a cinematograph film to be seen or heard in public shall be in the like position, in any proceedings for infringement of copyright (if any) in the film under section 13 of this Act, as if he had been the holder of a licence granted by the owner of that copyright to cause the film to be seen or heard in public by the reception of the programme.

(3) If, in the circumstances mentioned in the last preceding subsection, a person causing a cinematograph film to be seen or heard infringes the copyright in the film by reason that the cable programme was not an authorised programme—

(a) no proceedings shall be brought against that person under this Act in respect of his infringement of that copyright, but
(b) it shall be taken into account in assessing damages in any proceedings against the person sending the programme, in so far as that copyright was infringed by him in sending the programme.

(4) For the purposes of this section, a cable programme shall be taken, in relation to a cinematograph film, to be an authorised programme if, but only if, it is sent by, or with the licence of, the owner of the copyright in the film.". '—[Mr. Hurd.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Hurd: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Government amendments Nos. 51, 60 and 160.

Mr. Hurd: This is simply a reordering of material in the Bill to make it clearer and more comprehensible. Clause 23 already covers a number of separate copyright matters and to make room for some additions which I shall be proposing a little later on we thought that it was sensible to split the clause in two. Everything to do with the inclusion of sound recordings and cinematograph films in cable programmes will now go in this separate new clause, while everything to do with the inclusion of broadcasts in cable services will remain in clause 23. Copyright law is by nature a fairly impenetrable jungle and anything that we can do to help people to find their way through it will be a good thing.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 12

PROVISION OF ADDITIONAL TELETEXT SERVICES

.—(1) If the IBA provide additional teletext services, then, for the purpose of enabling a teletext contractor to make charges for the reception of transmissions containing material provided by him and broadcast in such a service, the IBA may, notwithstanding anything in the 1981 Act, broadcast the transmissions in such a form (whether scrambled, encoded or otherwise) as will prevent any person from receiving them unless he obtains from the contractor the means of doing so.

(2) In this section and in the 1981 Act "additional teletext service" means a teletext service (other than a DBS service) which is additional to those already provided by the IBA under the 1981 Act. —[Mr Hurd.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Hurd: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Government amendments Nos. 100, 102 to 112, 123, 127, 130 144, 155, 174, and 176 to 178.

Mr. Hurd: I accept the criticism of the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell) which I rejected in another context earlier. This new clause arrives at a late moment and I need to explain why.
The IBA recently asked us whether we could provide it with powers to provide new teletext services. In particular, it was thinking of providing new information services to specialist occupational or professional groups, such as doctors or farmers, on a subscription basis. We agreed with the IBA, and I hope the House will too, that it should be able to take advantage of the developing technology of teletext in which Britain is in a strong position. Therefore, we thought it right, rather than miss the bus, to make this small addition to the Bill to enable the IBA to provide additional teletext services in encoded form so that a subscription can be charged for them. The services will he for general reception so that any member of the public could become a subscriber, although the services are likely to be intended for specialist groups.

Mr. Gorst: Does my right hon. Friend envisage the possibility that the IBA may now, in a back door way, be entering the interactive services of cable television? For example, suppose somebody wished to disseminate a stock exchange and Fleet street service using cable, and the IBA came along with its coded service on teletext, would that not be a back door way in which it would be entering into this business? Has my right hon. Friend any objection to that if indeed it turns out to be the case?

Mr. Hurd: I shall have to look at that specific example, but the general proposition that the IBA has put to us is that it wishes to provide additional teletext services. Of course it already provides uncoded ones. It wishes to provide teletext services in encoded form so that a subscription can be charged. I see no objection in principle to that. If my hon. Friend sees an objection perhaps he will say so. On the whole, it seemed to us that this was a reasonable proposition that should not be made impossible by the law.
The IBA will have the power to provide DBS teletext services if it so chooses. Such services should be on all fours with the DBS programme services so that a DBS teletext service should have a contract life of 12 years as opposed to the eight-year life of a terrestrial contract, and

it should be subject to whatever levy provisions apply to DBS services rather than to the levy requirements on terrestrial teletext services.
Therefore, the amendments to clauses 37, 39, 40 and 51 are technical amendments to define a DBS teletext contractor, provide that DBS teletext services may be broadcast in an encoded form so that a subscription can be charged, and bring them within the ambit of the levy arrangement proposed for the IBA's DBS services as a whole.
The amendments to clause 44 and schedule 4 make it clear that the Satellite Broadcasting Board can provide teletext services. The amendment to schedule 5, which defines programmes as including linking material, teletext and so forth, is a minor drafting amendment.

Mr. Bermingham: This clause is yet another example of the Government bringing something into the Bill at the last moment. They appeared to be making up the Bill as it progressed through Committee. Be that as it may, the Opposition note what the new clause brings, welcome the extension of the IBA and understand the reason for the applications being made.
At long last, the real value of cable is beginning to dawn on those who are advising the Government on this matter. It is in the provision of such services that cable has its real value. In Committee, it was said on more than one occasion, by myself among others, that the entertainment side of cable is but an adjunct to its real value. Clearly the IBA is beginning to take that on board with As consideration of the provision of specialist services. Not only will it provide specialist services to doctors, far example, and perhaps to those who want, as the hon. Member for Hendon, North (Mr. Gorst) suggested, to follow the stock market, but to various other practices and professions. For example, in the legal profession a scheme is being created whereby one can get an update on legal decisions by an interactive system. If the IBA wishes to enter into such services through cable, that would be an enhancement and an advantage in the use of cable.
In the creation of the cable system, the real value of such services to our society in the coming years lies in their availability. The provision of information technology by means of interactive services is the way that we should have been going. That is why some of us have argued that the Department of Trade and Industry's input into this Bill should have been greater. The Home Office interest lies in control and regulation of the content of the entertainment services that will flow down the cables. The real value to society is the information that the cables can transmit, by interactive services, between the consumer and the producer. In that way, the technology and information that are needed to develop our society and industry can be that much more easily available to us.
Once again, at the 23rd hour, 59th minute, yet another series of ideas has been introduced into the Bill. My right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell) suggested that we are on version five or six of the Bill. Those of us who have kept a score sheet of the changes in direction and the alterations are getting confused as to whether this is the 10th, 11th or 12th version. Perhaps by the time that we reach Third Reading, new ideas will have been thrown in.
I hope that the concept behind this Bill is that it is a means of enhancing the way that information and services are made available to the public, whether at home or at


work. If we can create a cable system and a DBS system that will enhance such aspects of our life, we shall have done a good job. However, I fear that the Home Office has not yet realised that the Department of Trade and Industry has an important role to play. That can come only when we encourage industry to cable the whole country.

Mr. Gorst: I rise in response to the invitation of my right hon. Friend the Minister to express my view as to whether there are any objections in principle to these proposals. No, there are no objections in principle, but there may be some rather embarrassing anomalies. There may be some confusion as to which authority application must be made. We already have the Cable Authority, the Satellite Broadcasting Board, British Telecom for certain services and the Home Secretary. Now it is possible for somebody who feels that a licence to run a particular service has been unfairly refused by BT and the Cable Authority to have a new avenue—the IBA. It will be able to buy in a service that has been rejected by others without having to refer to the Cable Authority, the Home Secretary, BT or anybody else.
Therefore, there will be a proliferation of authorities or, to put it mildly, a sort of Irish stew of watchdogs. Has my right hon. Friend thought of the implications? I am not against it as a matter of principle. It is highly desirable that the IBA should be involved in communications technology, but should it do so without being required to consult, at the very least, some of the authorities mentioned in the Bill?

Mr. Michael Marshall: I take this opportunity to refer to amendment No. 100, and, in particular, to what I take to be a move by the IBA to explore the possibilities of some originality in the provision of teletext. Like other hon. Members, I am in some difficulty because events are moving so quickly that it is difficult to have an idea of what we are discussing in the provision of teletext by the IBA. I assume that this turns on some of the new thinking within the IBA as a result of the 15 offers on the provision of services that it received by its deadline of 20 June. Anything that my right hon. Friend the Minister can say about that will be helpful.
I invite my right hon. Friend to say a word or two about the definition of teletext. I understand that he was referring to the possibility that the IBA would see opportunities to provide services that are not at present available, such as the internal service for doctors that my right hon. Friend mentioned. This is a different approach from the more traditional teletext of commodity prices, sport, and so on. If we are to have a wider service, which I would welcome, my right hon. Friend should perhaps go further and make that plain. I have an interest in DBS. I declare my interest as a consultant in the British Aerospace space and communications division. My interest is peripheral because I am concerned only with the provision of the basic satellite.
Will the value-added network service that takes up spare capacity, whether the spare capacity is in existing channel usage in daytime or in the downtime overnight, come within the context of teletext? If my right hon. Friend is saying that, he is providing an opportunity for an interesting development that would help the viability of the project as a whole.
I am concerned about some of the knocking copy that has been doing the rounds on the viability of direct broadcasting by satellite. I take it that in amendment No. 100 my right hon. Friend is taking a further step towards showing the viability of DBS, which is greatly to be welcomed. Other countries, such as Luxembourg and France, are looking to see how their footprints will offer them opportunities not only on the continent, but in the southern part of Britain. Inevitably, we shall increasingly be drawn towards an open sky policy.
Therefore, when we discuss the viability of our national project, it is important that we give every possible opportunity to achieve that viability. What my right hon. Friend has proposed is important. I hope that he will expand on what he said earlier, because it could reassure many of those who are seeking to take advantage of what the House is providing. It would also help to overcome some of the difficulties that my right hon. Friend and the Government have had in trying to keep pace with fast-moving technological change. With the establishment of authorities that will help on day-to-day regulatory matters, we are starting on the right track. That is the only way ahead. I hope that my right hon. Friend can answer my questions.

Mr. Hurd: My hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, North (Mr. Gorst) was initially worried that the IBA might be providing unfair competition to cable by moving into interactive services by the back door. But the IBA is talking about a one-way service, whereas interactive services by cable are, by definition, two-way.
Anything that the IBA provides will, in law, be part of its own services, so there will be no question of people seeking the IBA's permission for their services to be broadcast. They would have to persuade the IBA that it should provide those services. There is no overlap with the duties of the Cable Authority or with the machinery set up under the Telecommunications Act.
I cannot add substantially to what I have told the House about the services that the IBA might propose to provide if our proposals are approved. We are talking about teletext, not additional television services or other value-added services. However, I endorse the basic thought running through the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, North.
The hon. Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham) pointed out a problem. Throughout the preparation of the Bill and in debates in this House and in another place, new proposals have come forward. Technology, inventors and entrepreneurs do not always respect the parliamentary timetable, and when proposals, such as that contained in our amendments, have been made, there has been a major question for the Government to consider. Do we say "Sorry, it is too late. You have missed the boat and you will have to wait for the next broadcasting Bill", or do we add the proposal to the Bill, accepting the difficulty that we must impose on the House and which I do not deny? 
That problem has cropped up several times in the past year and our answer has depended on whether the proposal fitted in with the general policy of the Government and the philosophy of the Bill. We believe that the proposal embodied in our amendments does fit in.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 10

NATIONAL ADVISORY COMMITTEES

`(1) The Authority shall appoint:

(a) an advisory committee for Scotland;
(b) an advisory committee for Wales; and
(c) an advisory committee for Northern Ireland.

(2) The person for the time being holding office as the member of the Authority appointed pursuant to paragraph 2(2) of Schedule 1 to make the interests of Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland, as the case may be, his special care shall be the chairman of the advisory committee appointed under this section for the part of the United Kingdom with which he is specially concerned.

(3) Subject to subsection (2), each advisory committee appointed under this section (in this section referred to as a "national committee")—

(a) shall be so constituted, and
(b)shall consist of persons selected by reference to such qualifications,
as in the opinion of the Authority would be appropriate for reflecting, so far as is reasonably practicable, the range of taste and interests of persons residing in the part of the United Kingdom for which the committee is appointed (in this section referred to, in relation to a national committee, as its area)

(4) Before appointing a person to be a member of a national committee the Authority shall satisfy themselves that he—

(a) will have no financial or other interest in any advertising agency, and
(b) will have no such other financial or other interest in advertising as is in the opinion of the Authority likely to prejudice his independence as a member of that committee;
and the Authority shall also satisfy themselves from time to time that each member of a national committee has not such interest as is described in paragraph (a) or (b) of this subsection.

(5) The function of a national committee shall be—
to give the Authority, with respect to the conduct of their cable programme services for the area of their committee such advice as in the opinion of the committee would be appropriate for reflecting, so far as is reasonably practicable, the range of taste and interests of persons residing in that area.'.—[Mr. Wilson.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Gordon Wilson: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may take the following amendments: No. 15, in clause 7, page 7, line 4 at end insert—

'(d) the extent to which the applicant or each applicant proposes, in an area where another language as well as English is in common use, to use a suitable proportion of matter in that language.'.

No. 24, in clause 10, page 10, line 20 leave out 'and' and insert—
'(d) that any condition of any licence giving effect to matters considered relevant and paragraphs (c) and (d) of subsection (2) of section 7 above shall be adhered to; and'.

No. 150, in schedule 1, page 41, line 17 at end insert—
'(lA) Three out of the members of the Authority other than the Chairman and Deputy Chairman shall be persons who appear to the Secretary of State to be suited to make the interests of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, respectively, their special care.'.

Mr. Wilson: I wish to draw the attention of the House to a curious omission from the Bill. This must be the first time for at least 35 or 40 years that a Bill purporting to deal with broadcasting in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland has made no provision for the representation of the national communities of the United Kingdom.
It is strange that a Government who produced the Broadcasting Act 1981, which made specific provision for the representation of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland on the IBA, and who set up a Welsh channel in place of

Channel 4, which was made available in other parts of the United Kingdom, have omitted from this Bill any provision for the representation of Scotland. That omission is curious if not insulting.
The Minister of State should be made aware of the feelings of Scots, which, no doubt, are reflected in Wales and Northern Ireland, that their views ought to be represented. The Bill sets out criteria under which licences will be granted for programmes to be made available in different parts of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. I appreciate that some rural areas are unlikely to be covered. Indeed, now that capital allowances have been removed, there is some doubt about whether cable companies will set up in business. Nevertheless. there is at stake a principle to which the Minister should address his mind.
The new clause is modelled word for word on section 17 of the Broadcasting Act 1981, and the royal charter of the BBC sets out arrangements by which Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland will be represented by national broadcasting councils, with the chairmen of those councils being governors of the BBC. I cannot see why the Government have failed to make special provision for Scotland in the Bill.
Clause 7 sets out the matters to be taken into account by the new Cable Authority in deciding whether or to whom to grant a licence. It says that the authority shall "take into account all matters appearing to them to be relevant." That is a catch-all provision. Without prejudice to that provision, the clause sets out individual considerations relating to the provision of a diffusion service in any area. They include
the range and diversity of the programmes which the applicant or each applicant proposes to include … the extent to which the applicant or each applicant proposes to include
EEC matters and, more interestingly,
the extent to which the applicant or each applicant proposes to include programmes of an educational nature, programmes calculated to appeal specially to the taste and outlook of persons living in the area and programmes in which such persons are given an opportunity to participate".
If it is the Government's intention that the Cable Authority should have power to grant licences in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, it follows that there should be on that authority people who are competent to make a judgment. I do not take the argument too far, because we all know about tokenism—putting a token Scot on a council or committee. If that person is not chosen correctly, his interest in Scotland may be less than many of us would wish. Nevertheless, tokenism is better than nothing, which is what the Government seem to have in mind in this case.
The national advisory committees established by section 17 of the Broadcasting Act 1981 were set up to ensure that the interests and tastes of national areas were catered for. When the Cable Authority dishes out licences for Glasgow, Edinburgh, Dundee, Aberdeen or any other area, there should be someone on the authority, by statutory right, who will know from local and national experience whether the applicants are reasonable people. Otherwise, we may end up with the appalling situation that those who take the decisions, without knowledge of the localities, will have a metropolitan bias. Conceivably, they may never even have been to Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland and might never wish to go there.
We all know how centralised the existing broadcasting structures have become. We in the SNP find during


general elections that it is virtually impossible to get matters relating to Scotland and our party on the United Kingdom broadcasts. That gripe is not covered by the new clause or the amendments, but the programming companies of the IBA, which have a right to produce programmes, leave Scotland in a very weak position. I speak about that with some depth of feeling.
If that happens in a situation in which Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland have the right of representation, I shudder to think what might happen if we did not have any representation whatsoever. Can the Minister explain why no clause similar to the provision in the 1981 Act or to the provisions in the BBC's royal charter has been incorporated in the Bill? This constitutes a precedent—a remarkable step away from recognition of the national status of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. That national status has been recognised by this House for decades, and by the Privy Council in terms of the royal charter of the BBC. I should be glad if the Minister would include my new clause, if only for the sake of symmetry in broadcasting legislation. I hope that he will approach the matter with an open mind.
8 pm
Amendment No. 15 takes the argument a little further.It takes care of a curious omission from the Bill, which did not exist in the 1981 Act. It would add the words:
the extent to which the applicant or each applicant proposes, in an area where another language as well as English is in common use, to use a suitable proportion of matter in that language.
The commercial demands of cable broadcasting are such that it is unlikely that areas of Scotland where Gaelic is spoken to a substantial extent will be covered, but it is not impossible that they will be, and the position of Welsh-speaking areas in Wales will probably be stronger.
Clause 7 lists the various factors which the cable authority has to take into account. One factor not mentioned in the clause is the question of programmes in other languages. Twenty per cent. of the population of Wales speaks Welsh. In the Highland region, almost 10 per cent. of the population speaks Gaelic, and the proportion rises to over 16 per cent. in the Lochaber area and 80 per cent. in the Western Isles. Provision must be made for those areas.
In the 1981 Act the Government went out of their way to establish a Welsh channel in lieu of Channel 4, which covers other parts of the United Kingdom. At the very least, a small concession could be made by the Government in relation to Gaelic and Welsh.
The next amendment is No. 24. I was struck, again, by the curious way in which the Bill has been phrased. Clause 7 sets out the matters which have to be taken into account, but there seems to be no provision thereafter—except perhaps of a blunderbuss category—for enforcement of an obligation or duty. In this respect, the 1981 Act was superior. Section 4 made it clear that there was a duty on the IBA
to satisfy themselves that, so far as possible, programmes broadcast by the Authority comply with
certain requirements. I would be interested to know why no complementary obligation is included in the Bill.
This is not exclusively a Scottish point. It would be reasonable that if the Cable Authority issued a licence, having taken account of certan provisions which the authority itself deemed to be relevant, there should be

some power of enforcement. In passing—I know I must not refer to it in detail—I should like to say that another amendment or new clause was tabled on the subject of programming. If the Cable Authority had incorporated in the licence a provision that a certain proportion of the programmes on the channel which had been made available had to be of local production, it would obviously be essential to make sure that the licensee did not wriggle or slide out of the informal undertakings given to the authority prior to the allocation of the licence. I am not sure whether the powers in the Bill are adequate, bearing in mind the difference in drafting between the 1981 Act, which sought to deal with franchises which might be given for broadcasting in a more general way, and the provisions for licences or franchises now to be issued in respect of cable programmes. I hope that the Minister can tell us why the Bill is drafted as it is. I hope that he will take account of the view put forward in my amendment.
My new clause deals with the question of the establishment of national advisory committees. Amendment 150 deals with the appointment to the authority itself of persons representative of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. My arguments on the new clause referred to the ability of individuals representing our countries to be members of the main board, and so I do not have to repeat my arguments on amendment No. 150.
It is worrying that, without any publicity or any advance notification that there was to be a serious change in constitutional procedures dealing with the national minorities within the United Kingdom, the Government have produced a Bill which makes no provision for the countries to which I have referred. It is strange and disturbing that, as countries, we are of so little importance to the metropolitan centre that the Government are prepared to deal with us by omission. Programmes may be issued to us without consultation and without guidance about what might be suitable for the tastes of the areas concerned. This is an important constitutional point, and I hope that the Minister will address himself to it very seriously.

Mr. Roger Gale: Had the hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Stewart) been present during the Committee stage—[Interruption.]—he would have been aware that we sought throughout our deliberations to protect the freedom of the companies that are likely to be franchised. We want to protect the freedom of those who are to appoint members to the authority to choose the best people for the job, from wherever they may come. To that end, the Committee resisted all attempts from all quarters to see any minority interests given a right of representation on the authority. We are not saying that a Scot, a Welshman, a Cornishman or—dare I say it—someone from Ely or the Isle of Thanet could not be a member of the authority, but we say that he should be there not as of right but because those who appoint to the authority believe that he is the best person to do the job. The hon. Member for Western Isles—

Mr. Wilson: No, for Dundee, East.

Mr. Gale: I apologise to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. John Home Robertson: That illustrates the problem—it just sums it up.

Mr. Gale: Were the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson) the hon. Member for Western Isles, he


would be ideally suited to being a member of the authority. The issue at stake is that members of the authority should be the right people for the job.
The hon. Member for Dundee, East referred many times to the Broadcasting Act 1981 and showed the misunderstanding that has surrounded the Bill from the beginning. We are dealing not with broadcasting but with narrowcasting. We are dealing not with television but with cable. We are dealing not with entertainment but with a series of interactive services that will cover many facilities and interests. For that reason, if for that reason alone, the Bill is important.

Mr. Wilson: I am grateful for the comments of the hon. Member for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale) which demonstrate his lack of knowledge about Scottish affairs, especially parliamentary constituencies. Does he not realise that the narrow broadcast cable programmes will be transmitted to some Scottish communities although they might be entirely unsuitable? There is nothing in the Bill that would allow the national characteristics of Scotland to be taken care of.

Mr. Gale: We now have narrow broadcasting

. Mr. Wilson: That is the hon. Gentleman's term.

Mr. Gale: No, I said narrowcasting and broadcasting. There is a considerable difference between the two, the difference being that one is received by many people whereas the other is targeted to a specific group of people, provided that they pay. The Committee believed that the authority should be chosen for its ability to offer franchises to the people who are best suited to the communities concerned. That does not necessarily mean having any representative of "Scotland". Of what part of Scotland would that representative be representative? Are we seriously suggesting that a Glaswegian could represent the best interests of the Western Isles? Is a Glaswegian more likely to know more than a Londoner or a Cornishman about what is best suited to the Western Isles? The answer must be no. [HON. MEMBERS: "Rubbish."]

Mr. Wilson: rose—

Mr. Gale: I have given way once and do not wish to prolong the debate.

Mr. Home Robertson: The hon. Gentleman has given it all away.

Mr. Wilson: rose—

Mr. Gale: The hon. Member for Dundee, East has made his point. We have resisted the application of specific area groups, of groups of artists, of unions and of others who have tried to make a special case for representation on an authority. If we had given in to those requests, the authority would not comprise nine or 15 members, but would have been unrealistically large. That is why we resisted those requests then and that is why we must resist them now.

Mr. John Maxton: There speaks the south of England that controls the House, controls the culture of our country and controls the nation. The Minister probably understands the sensitivities of the Scottish people better than the hon. Member for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale). He must be one of the few hon. Members who have made a sizeable profit out of Scottish nationalism as the author of a book called "Scotch on the Rocks", which was made into a television series.
I support new clause 10 It has nothing to do with the nationalism that is supported by the two parties that have tabled it. Anyone who represents a Scottish seat, a Welsh seat or a Northern Ireland seat must want new clause 10 to be included in the Bill. I hope that that is true of Conservative Members who represent Scottish seats. We will watch their behaviour in the Lobbies with interest.
There is a separate Scottish entity throughout the range of communication services. That includes narrowcasting, as the hon. Member for Thanet, North would have it. There is a quite specific business community in Scotland that raises investment and makes capital in Scotland. That community is not centred on London. We have our own separate financial system, a separate legal system and a separate education system. As the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson) said, the Bill refers to educational concerns. Scotland's education system operates under separate legislation.

Mr. Brinton: I am half Scot and half English. I served in the Royal Scots and feel strongly half Scottish, so I am divided. Will the hon. Gentleman accept it from me that narrowcasting will be decided on by small areas covered by a franchise that will not survive unless it provides adequately the types of service to which the hon. Gentleman has referred?

Mr. Maxton: In other words, this whole thing is to be left to commercial interests. I do not find that satisfactory.
Is there any guarantee that the educational content will be geared to a specific area in Scotland? Such a franchise will not survive on the basis of its education content. It will have to survive on other elements, and we want the noncommercial elements to be protected. We feel that they can best be protected by Scotland having an advisory committee which is made up of Scots, as is the case with the BBC and the IBA. That does not seem unreasonable.
The people who have served on the advisory committee have not always been the best but there have been some very good people. One such was one of my constituents —Professor Tom Carberry—who served for a long time as chairman of the Scottish advisory committee. He also served on the IBA and added a specifically Scottish voice, advising the IBA on the best means of ensuring proper licensing of independent broadcasting in Scotland. We need that Scottish voice, so I support new clause 10.

Mr. Dafydd Wigley (Caernarfon): I support new clause 10. There is a clear difference between Dundee, East and the Western Isles, but it is not always appreciated here.
Whether we talk of broadcasting or narrowcasting, we are talking about bringing to consumers in Wales, Scotland and elsewhere a service with a cultural dimension and others. The hon. Member for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale) referred to the need to choose for the authority the people who are best suited to assess the interests of the community being served. Those communities are diverse. They constitute different interests and values. Clause 7(2) (c) refers to:
programmes of an educational nature, programmes calculated to appeal specially to the taste and outlook of persons living in the area and programmes in which such persons are given an opportunity to participate".
In Wales, as in Scotland, there is a different educational structure. The hon. Member for Thanet, North may not


appreciate that in my constituency 84 per cent. of the population is Welsh-speaking. Two out of every three of my constituents communicate with me through the Welsh language, and about 20 per cent. of the population of Wales is Welsh-speaking. In the Taff Ely area, which is about eight miles from Cardiff, 29 per cent. of the children receive their primary education through the Welsh language. Communities of that sort must have different interests, and whether they are better or worse than those of others does not matter. The search for centralisation and homogeneity is bringing a real threat, especially when accompanied by the provision of a cable service. I want to see a service that can respond to the heterogeneity of the communities of these islands. The real threat that attaches to the development of a cable service is that of Big Brother.
The cable service could be a power for enormous good. It could herald one of the most important changes in communication, whether broadcasting or narrowcasting, that has been seen in the century. It opens a new era, but if it is to be the era of centralism, of a diktat from the centre of what is good—what is good for the Western isles is good for Dundee and what is good for Dundee is necessarily good for Middlesbrough, Cornwall or Cardiff —it cannot be accepted.
Cardiff has a local broadcasting station that is known as CBC. Less than 5 per cent. of the people of Cardiff speak the Welsh language, but that station feels obliged to broadcast a Welsh news programme on the hour. In Swansea an even greater proportion of the broadcasting is in the Welsh language.
There is a diversity of culture within Wales and there is a great difference in cultural values between Wales and England. Culture is not related only to language, for in English-speaking Wales there are cultural values and interests that are different from those elsewhere, and those areas are entitled to have some defence against the dangers of centralism.
There is a reference in the Bill to listed events, which are events of "national interest". "National interest" is defined as
interests within England, Scotland, Wales of Northern Ireland.
That is fair enough because there are national interests. The degree of interest in the Welsh rugby cup final might be enormous in south Wales but not of tremendous interest in Kent, for example. The interest in the national eisteddfod may not be great in the constituency of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett) but is enormous in my constituency. There are national interests and the Bill goes some way to take them up. Unfortunately, it does not go all the way to protect the interests that come within its ambit.
A hot subject in Wales is that of a sensitive and responsive structure of broadcasting. The campaign leading up to the eventual establishment of the Welsh fourth television channel was an emotional one, but I accept that much progress has been made in recent years. In sound broadcasting we have a Welsh language service and an English language service. We have a Welsh language television service that is extremely successful and popular in Wales. The provision of these services has largely defused the feeling that was mounting. The

Minister is taking a step backwards in not recognising the need to introduce safeguards against similar feelings building up against cable television.
When the Welsh fourth television channel was being set up there was a slight feeling to conflict with the cable companies that provide BBC and IBA broadcasting in the valley. The problems have been avoided largely, but that is an example of the difficulty in which we could find ourselves.
There is an effective broadcasting structure in both Scotland and Wales — for example, there is the Broadcasting Council of Wales, of which Alwyn Roberts is chairman. Alwyn Roberts is also the BBC governor for Wales. We are urging that the same proven formula should be used for the cable service. Let us avoid a problem before we run into it instead of trying to respond when passions are high.

Mr. Home Robertson: The hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) concentrated understandably and rightly on the Welsh language when discussing regional and national interests. As far as I know, no one in my constituency speaks Gaelic as his or her first language. However, I am convinced that many of my constituents are concerned about the preservation of the cultural and linguistic heritage of areas of the United Kingdom where there is a need to protect it. One of the ways of achieving that objective is through the broadcasting or narrowcasting medium.
As a Scottish Labour Member, I am always wary of supporting a new clause or any other proposition that is moved by a member of the Scottish Nationalist party, especially its president, the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson). However, when I heard the contribution of the hon. Member for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale) I felt emboldened to participate in the debate. The hon. Gentleman managed to confuse Dundee, East with the Western Isles, which is an illustration of the problem that faces us.

Mr. Robin: They are both north of Watford.

Mr. Home Robertson: As my hon. Friend suggests, both places are up in the north somewhere. That is the approach of many Conservative Members who represent constituencies in the south.
I have no idea what the promoters of the cable organisations have in mind. Having listened to the debate, I have a horrific picture in my mind of someone somewhere making pornographic films with Gaelic subtitles in the happy illusion that he will make money on the Western Isles. I am not sure about it, but I do not think that he will make much money.
A serious constitutional issue is underlying the debate. It has been taken up by the hon. Member for Dundee, East and my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton). There are special problems in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland and there is a genuine need to preserve the cultural, locational and other interests of those parts of the United Kingdom. It is vital that that should be done by means of broadcasting or narrowcasting, or by any means of communication. I am alarmed by the appalling degree of commercial centralisation that the Government have inflicted on the nation, and especially by means of the Bill, which will extend the process into broadcasting. It must be resisted.
I shall give what might appear to be a rather trite example of centralisation which we have experienced in the past. For how many years did the BBC speak in the exclusive standard English terms of those such as the hon. Member for Gravesham (Mr. Brinton)? That standard English dialect was rammed into the ears of generations of Scots, Welsh and Irish. That was unfortunate and the BBC has learnt from that mistake. Many variations of dialect have been introduced by those broadcasting through the BBC. I am concerned that the Bill could swallow up and obliterate the little progress that has been made, even in that minor sector. For that reason and for many others, I am happy to support the hon. Member for Dundee, East.

Mr. Corbett: I suspect that the Minister may be tempted to astonish us by saying that he has found our arguments so powerful that he feels able to accept the new clause. However, it is much more likely that he will adopt the approach that he used in Committee and say, "We want to use a loose rein. If the Cable Authority wishes to set up advisory committees for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, it is perfectly entitled to do so." As has been demonstrated by earlier speakers, that begs an extremely important question.
8.30 pm
We are trying to build some non-commercial safeguards into the composition of the Cable Authority. In short, we are talking about the creation of substantial local monopolies. That is what the Bill is about, and that is the duty that will be laid upon the Cable Authority. There will be no competition. Areas of the country will be carved up and handed over to people who think they can make money out of cable. Those who take the initial plunge will be tempted to go down the same degrading, lousy street as The Sun newspaper, going for the lowest form of rubbish in order to make a quick buck out of their investment. Conservative Members said that they would be perfectly happy to leave the result purely to the operation of commercial interests. Labour Members are not prepared to do so.
The new clause refers to
the range of taste and interests of persons residing in the part of the United Kingdom for which the committee is appointed
In Committee I tried to make the point that we wanted the membership of the Cable Authority to reflect the realities of life in Britain in 1984. Most of our citizens are now women, so when those interests are being taken into account, as proposed in the new clause, I hope that in those areas where women are in the majority the majority of the members of the committees will be women. If the committees are started on the wrong basis, by consulting the list of the great and the good and putting them on the committees, without taking proper account of the changing role and changing interests of women, the situation will never be put right. I hope that the supporters of the new clause will take that argument into consideration. For those and other reasons, I hope that it will be accepted.

Mr. Clement Freud: Just as I was a keen proponent—and remain one—of the local advisory committee, so would I like to endorse new clause 10, which contains virtually the same sentiments as I put forward in Committee.
I should like the House to bear in mind that, having got to Report stage, the best we can hope for from the

Government is that the Minister will take into consideration the argument and recommendation for a national committee to include people who will have the interests of minorities—and of minority languages—closely at heart.
I am not sure that paragraph 4(a) or paragraph (b) of subsection (4) of the new clause are essential, in that a member of a national committee
will have no … financial or other interests in advertising".
What is important is that people shall not, in the opinion of the authority, have views likely to prejudice their independence.
In looking at the Government Benches as though they were an old television set, one sees the hon. Members for Wealden (Sir G. Johnson Smith), for Gravesham (Mr. Brinton) and for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale) —[Interruption.] I understand that I am equally, as it were, on the wrong side of the television set. When my wife said, "Will you be long?" I said, "The debate may not take long but the declaration of interests from the other side may hold it up a bit." [Interruption.]I wanted to name the hon. Member for Watford for a particular reason.
I wonder whether some of the reservations of Conservative Members arise from the fact that it has always been so difficult to sell commercials during broadcasts—or even narrowcasts—in another language. I know that one of the main reasons why the Welsh language channel faltered at the beginning was the reluctance of advertising agencies to recommend to their clients that it was a viable programme in which to interest themselves commercially.
I support the new clause. I support involvement. I suppose that I support empathy on the part of the controlling communicators towards the consumer.

Mr. Robert Maclennan: I should like briefly to give my full support to a sensible new clause which recognises, as it should, the cultural identity, the educational identity and, in the case of Scotland, the legal separateness of the nation of Scotland. It is important that representatives of those different backgrounds and traditions should be separately constituted as an advisory body and not merely selected for membership of the authority.

Mr. Hurd: The hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson) and his assorted allies are, of course, right to remind us that when we are talking about cable we are talking about something that is of equal importance and application to the whole of the United Kingdom and not just to England. I think we knew that, but he has reminded us of it, though I do not think that his proposals fit the case and I should like to explain why.
The analogy which the hon. Gentleman and his supporters have drawn is, of course, with the existing broadcasting arrangements, but cable is not public service broadcasting, for many reasons. One of them is precisely that it has and will have its roots in relatively small local areas. Cable is a local business.
We discussed in Committee the need for advisory committees, and I explained that we do not want to tie the hands of the Cable Authority by insisting upon a particular form of local consultation, underpinned by a particular system of committees. That does not mean that we are against the concept of local advice. Of course there should be local consultation; there will be, and has to be under the Bill.
In his peroration the hon. Member for Dundee, East talked about decisions without consultation. Has he not read clause 5? It goes a long way in describing not only the statutory need for consultation, but the way it should go. The hon. Gentleman is mistaken in saying that decisions will be taken without consultation.
I do not think that the hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) can have read the Bill, because in clause 7(2)(c) one of the criteria of which the authority will have to take account is the degree of local appeal and participation in what is proposed. As the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett) acknowledged, the authority can set up advisory committees if it wants to. Procedurally speaking, it can set about its task in several different ways, but certainly it has to consult locally and take local wishes into account, as well as the opportunities for local consultation. The same point applies to the composition of the authority itself.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale) reminded us, the Labour party did a noble job in Committee. The hon. Member for Dundee, East would have been proud of the Labour Members who proposed body after body and estate of the realm after estate of the realm which should, as of right, be represented. We would have been left, not with an authority, but with a senate of the great and good, as defined by the Labour party. I make no apology for saying that we want something quite different—a small, flexible authority of people chosen for their own skills and experiences rather than for what they represent, providing and regulating a process which is essentially local.
The same point applies to language. There are great opportunities in cable, because of its essentially local nature, for including material in languages other than English. Quite rightly, there was reference to Gaelic, which is allied to Welsh, but it is not only in those parts of the kingdom where those languages are spoken that the opportunity arises. It is actually arising in this city at the moment. In Southall a cable operator is providing services in the languages of the ethnic minorities. That is the sort of thing that cable is about. It is a very good thing, too. We do not need to put it in the Bill, as that is the kind of service that cable should be able to provide. The whole concept of cable is decentralising and local, for which clauses 5 and 7 provide. I do not think that we need these mechanical and procedural devices.

Mr. Denis Howell: To listen to the Minister, one would not think that we were discussing the Cable Authority, which will have an obligation to provide a service over the whole country, but that is what the Minister has been saying to us. When the right hon. Gentleman uttered the view that cable was not a public service but a local business, he completely transformed the nature of the argument that has been used about the Bill up to now.
We are supporting the principle of cable television in the belief that we are supporting a new public service that will be available to the people of this country to extend their choices and opportunities. Now the Minister says that that is not to be the motivating factor behind the proposals. I am absolutely astonished at that. The Minister, as well as Conservative Members, who have properly declared their interests in these matters, says that the new cable

services will have much less to do with extending choice and service than with the opportunity to get a quick reward from investment.
When the hon. Member for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale) told us that someone from Glasgow could not represent the interests of the Western Isles, he meant that people from Glasgow and the Western Isles would be best represented by London-based financiers. That is what he tried to say to us, and I believe that that is the cause of the present problem.
The Minister took time out to say, very properly, that hon. Members were adding to what he called the establishment of a senate, which he said that the Labour party tried to achieve. I entirely agree with that approach and disagree with his rejection of it. Traditional interests should be heard when a new television and broadcasting authority is being established. I shall not weary the House by going over in detail the interests that we have tried to establish, but it seems astonishing to have a new service without representatives from both sides of industry finding some place on it.
The interests of employees and of business and commerce need to be written specifically into the Bill, in the same way as local authorities have an important role to play when the authority is established. They should certainly be represented, not least because of all the planning considerations. Hundreds of miles of pavement will need to be dug up to put in the cables.
There is also the whole range of sport, art and entertainment, which will impinge upon the employee interests of those working in those spheres, as well as the interests of the sporting, artistic and cultural bodies which will provide those services. They have a vested interest to the extent that cable will be providing an alternative service, and that should be represented. Those Opposition Members who tabled new clause 10 are saying, very sensibly, that legitimate interests are involved. They based the new clause on geographical importance as well as the importance of people within certain areas, taking account of their lifestyle, cultural interests and so on. I understand that.
It is astonishing that the Minister has tried to reject the views of the regional or national advisory councils in the same way as he rejected in Committee the legitimate interests of people whom I have already mentioned. For those reasons, I shall advise my right hon. and hon. Friends to support the clause if it is pressed to a Division.

Mr. Wilson: The new clause and the amendment will certainly be pressed to a Division. I was shocked by the casual way in which the Minister was prepared to overcome constitutional precedent and ignored the interests of the Scots, the Welsh and the Northern Irish. The debate has overturned quite a few stones and exposed several kinds of obscene insect life beneath the Cable and Broadcasting Bill.
Even more interesting is the way in which the Home Office is beginning to take up the same stance as the Department of Trade and Industry in relation to Locate in Scotland and industrial grants. In other words, the United Kingdom Departments will be able to dictate to the minority nations of the United Kingdom what might happen. It is all very well for the Minister to smirk like that, but who will appoint the members of the authority?


The Minister will be responsible for appointing them, together with his right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary. How much say will we have in that? 
We have heard in the debate about the important aspect of language. Indeed, the Minister added to that, saying that cable was intended to take programmes into local communities. If so, why does the Bill not deal with the language issue in the same way as the Broadcasting Act 1981? 
The Minister takes the view that he would like a flexible authority which will not be bound to do anything other than under the vague criteria laid down in the Bill. His argument, if one follows it to its logical conclusion, is that there should not be a Cable Authority. It should not be fettered by statutory restrictions, yet the Government have decided that that is not appropriate. The Bill lays down substantial proposals for the formation of the Cable Authority and its membership, and deals with the powers and the criteria under which the licences should be given.
The hon. Member for Gravesham (Mr. Brinton) raised the question that the authority should be composed of the best people — I believe that the hon. Member for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale) made that point initially—and that they should have suitable skills. I wonder what would be the reaction in England if the Government brought forward a Bill under which the Cable Authority was composed of Frenchmen, Germans or Russians, who were entitled to decide which programmes were to be relayed into England. There would be an absolute outcry, yet that is exactly what the Government are proposing to do in the Bill by omitting all reference to a statutory provision for Scotland.
The Minister did not make even token reference to the regionalism of Scotland, never mind the national status of the country. He just dismissed it completely as if we were of no account. He may trust the Cable Authority to take appropriate decisions, but I could not understand his argument. There are 45 million people living in England, and the Minister is not prepared to give any representation to the minority nations of Scotland with 5 million people, to Wales with 3 million people, or to Northern Ireland with 2 million people.
The Minister will understand, based on those figures, that we do not trust him, his Department or the proposed Cable Authority to look after our interests. There is no way in which our interests will be taken care of. This is nothing more than metropolitan imperialism. Judgments will be made by people who are appointed by an English Department and they will be imposed on the peoples of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland without even a sounding box with members and an advisory committee.
The Minister referred to narrowcasting, but said that it was not important. He said that the Government want to make the service flexible and see how it adapts. I do not believe them for one moment. The Government, who propose to abolish the Greater London council, will find it no obstacle, next time they consider the royal charter for the BBC and when the Broadcasting Act is reviewed in 10 years' time, to omit Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland representation. They will be able to say that there is a precedent, that the matter was discussed in the House of Commons and that the House came to a decision. When I press the new clause to a Division there be a Government majority, but it will not represent and reflect the votes of hon. Members from Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.
Therefore, we have a dangerous precedent. The Minister said that this was not a public service, yet the Bill creates a public service body, a public authority which will be given the statutory task of overseeing cable television. I am not impressed by clause 5, to which the Minister referred, and certainly not by the lack of statutory provision for local control. The judgments will be made by the Cable Authority once the Bill has passed into law. There will be no obligation on the organisation to take account of Scottish, Welsh or Northern Irish interests. For that reason, and the others that I mentioned, I shall press the new clause to a Division. It involves an important matter of principle.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time —

The House divided: Ayes 102, Noes 204.

Division No. 396]
[8.51 pm


AYES


Alton, David
Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)


Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)
Howells, Geraint


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Hughes, Dr. Mark (Durham)


Barron, Kevin
Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)


Beckett, Mrs Margaret
Johnston, Russell


Benn, Tony
Kennedy, Charles


Bermingham, Gerald
Kirkwood, Archy


Bidwell, Sydney
Lamond, James


Blair, Anthony
Leighton, Ronald


Boyes, Roland
Lewis, Terence (Worsley)


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Litherland, Robert


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Brown, N. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne E)
McKay, Allen (Penistone)


Caborn, Richard
Mackenzie, Rt Hon Gregor


Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd &amp; M)
Maclennan, Robert


Campbell-Savours, Dale
McTaggart, Robert


Canavan, Dennis
Madden, Max


Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)
Maxton, John


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Michie, William


Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.)
Mitchell, Austin ('t Grimsby)


Cohen, Harry
Nellist, David


Cook, Frank (Stockton North)
O'Brien, William


Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)
Park, George


Corbett, Robin
Patchett, Terry


Cowans, Harry
Pavitt, Laurie


Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)
Pike, Peter


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'l)
Prescott, John


Deakins, Eric
Redmond, M.


Dixon, Donald
Richardson, Ms Jo


Dormand, Jack
Roberts, Allan (Bootle)


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.
Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)


Eadie, Alex
Ross, Ernest (Dundee W)


Eastham, Ken
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Edwards, Bob (Wh"mpt'n SE)
Skinner, Dennis


Evans, John (St. Helens N)
Smith, C.(lsl'ton S &amp; F"bury)


Ewing, Harry
Smith, Rt Hon J. (M'kl'ds E)


Fatchett, Derek
Soley, Clive


Fields, T. (L' pool Broad Gn)
Steel, Rt Hon David


Fisher, Mark
Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)


Forrester, John
Strang, Gavin


Foster, Derek
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald
Thompson, J. (Wansbeck)


Freud, Clement
Thorne, Stan (Preston)


George, Bruce
Tinn, James


Golding, John
Wainwright, R.


Gould, Bryan
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Gourlay, Harry
Wareing, Robert


Hamilton, James (M'well N)
Winnick, David


Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Haynes, Frank



Heffer, Eric S.
Tellers for the Ayes:


Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)
Mr. Gordon Wilson and Mr. Dafydd Wigley.


Home Robertson, John





NOES


Alexander, Richard
Bellingham, Henry


Atkins, Rt Hon Sir H.
Body, Richard


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Boscawen, Hon Robert






Bowden, A. (Brighton K'to'n)
Lester, Jim


Brinton, Tim
Lightbown, David


Brittan, Rt Hon Leon
Lilley, Peter


Brown, M. (Brigg &amp; Cl'thpes)
Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)


Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon A.
Lord, Michael


Budgen, Nick
Luce, Richard


Burt, Alistair
Lyell, Nicholas


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
McCurley, Mrs Anna


Cash, William
Macfarlane, Neil


Chapman, Sydney
MacGregor, John


Chope, Christopher
MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)


Cockeram, Eric
Maclean, David John


Colvin, Michael
McQuarrie, Albert


Coombs, Simon
Major, John


Cope, John
Malins, Humfrey


Cranborne, Viscount
Malone, Gerald


Dykes, Hugh
Maples, John


Eggar, Tim
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)


Emery, Sir Peter
Mather, Carol


Farr, Sir John
Maude, Hon Francis


Favell, Anthony
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Fenner, Mrs Peggy
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Fletcher, Alexander
Mayhew, Sir Patrick


Fookes, Miss Janet
Merchant, Piers


Forth, Eric
Mills, Iain (Meriden)


Fox, Marcus
Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)


Franks, Cecil
Moate, Roger


Freeman, Roger
Montgomery, Fergus


Gale, Roger
Morris, M. (N'hampton, S)


Gardner, Sir Edward (Fylde)
Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Moynihan, Hon C.


Goodlad, Alastair
Mudd, David


Gorst, John
Murphy, Christopher


Gow, Ian
Neale, Gerrard


Gregory, Conal
Needham, Richard


Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)
Nelson, Anthony


Ground, Patrick
Neubert, Michael


Grylls, Michael
Nicholls, Patrick


Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)
Norris, Steven


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Onslow, Cranley


Hanley, Jeremy
Oppenheim, Philip


Hannam,John
Ottaway, Richard


Harris, David
Page, Richard (Herts SW)


Haselhurst, Alan
Parris, Matthew


Hawkins, C. (High Peak)
Pawsey, James


Hawkins, Sir Paul (SW N'folk)
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Hawksley, Warren
Percival, Rt Hon Sir Ian


Hayes, J.
Pollock, Alexander


Hayward, Robert
Powell, William (Corby)


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Powley, John


Heddle, John
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg


Henderson, Barry
Proctor, K. Harvey


Hickmet, Richard
Raffan, Keith


Hicks, Robert
Rhodes James, Robert


Hind, Kenneth
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Ridsdale, Sir Julian


Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)
Rifkind, Malcolm


Holt, Richard
Robinson, Mark (N'port W)


Hooson, Tom
Roe, Mrs Marion


Howarth, Alan (Stratf"d-on-A)
Ryder, Richard


Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)
Sackville, Hon Thomas


Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)
Sayeed, Jonathan


Hubbard-Miles, Peter
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Hunter, Andrew
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Johnson-Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Jones, Robert (W Herts)
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine
Spencer, Derek


Kershaw, Sir Anthony
Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)


Key, Robert
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


King, Roger (B'ham N'field)
Stanbrook, Ivor


King, Rt Hon Tom
Stanley, John


Knight, Gregory (Derby N)
Steen, Anthony


Knight, Mrs Jill (Edgbaston)
Stern, Michael


Knowles, Michael
Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)


Knox, David
Stevens, Martin (Fulham)


Latham, Michael
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Lawler, Geoffrey
Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)


Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)
Stradling Thomas, J.





Sumberg, David
Ward, John


Taylor, John (Solihull)
Wardle, C. (Bexhill)


Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)
Warren, Kenneth


Temple-Morris, Peter
Watson, John


Terlezki, Stefan
Watts, John


Thomas, Rt Hon Peter
Wells, Bowen (Hertford)


Thompson, Donald (Calder V)
Wheeler, John


Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)
Whitfield, John


Thorne, Neil (llford S)
Whitney, Raymond


Thornton, Malcolm
Wiggin, Jerry


Thurnham, Peter
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Townend, John (Bridlington)
Wolfson, Mark


Tracey, Richard
Wood, Timothy


Trotter, Neville
Woodcock, Michael


Twinn, Dr Ian
Yeo, Tim


Viggers, Peter
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Waddington, David



Wakeham, Rt Hon John
Tellers for the Noes:


Walden, George
Mr. Ian Lang and Mr. Tim Sainsbury.


Wall, Sir Patrick



Waller, Gary

Question accordingly negatived.

Clause 2

MEANING OF CABLE PROGRAMME SERVICE" ETC

Amendment made: No. 1, in page 2, line 1, leave out `Part' and insert 'Ace .—[Mr. Hurd.]

Mr. Hurd: I beg to move amendment No. 2, in page 2, line 2, leave out 'consisting' and insert
'which consists wholly or mainly'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 3 and 4.

9 pm

Mr. Hurd: These are technical amendments. We shall later consider a group of amendments designed to give copyright protection to material, such as computer programmes, which may be included in a cable programme service or a broadcast. The amendments make it clear that where a cable programme service includes signals of this type, it is still to be regarded as a cable programme service, even though it does not consist solely of sounds and visual images.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments made: No. 3, in page 2, line 15, leave out `consisting' and insert
'which consists wholly or mainly'.

No. 4, in page 2, line 37, leave out 'consisting of' and insert
`which consists wholly or mainly in'.

No. 5, in page 3, line 11, leave out 'Part' and insert `Act' .—[Mr. Hurd.]

Clause 4

POWER TO LICENSE SERVICES

Mr. Hurd: I beg to move amendment No. 6, in page 4, line 16, leave out 'twelve' and insert 'fifteen'.
This is an important amendment responding to pleas made to us in Standing Committee. I shall deal, first, with one subsidiary issue. In the debates in another place and in Standing Committee doubts were expressed as to whether a cable licence would be required during the installation period when test transmissions were being run over the new system, but no proper service to subscribers


was being provided. My hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale) made that point. It was argued that if a licence were required in those circumstances, it could wipe as much as a year or more off the effective life of the licence. Having considered this matter, we are fully satisfied that, as the Bill is drafted, no cable licence is needed until the service is provided to subscribers. Test transmissions cannot be regarded as a proper service.
The main purpose of the amendment is to extend the period of the initial cable licence from 12 to 15 years. My right hon. and learned Friend and I carefully considered the case made in Committee to that effect. The establishment of a cable service is a high-risk venture. It will need substantial investment capital at the beginning and a long wait before the investment is recouped. In present circumstances, we are satisfied that it would be right to provide for those who are to make those large investments a rather longer period for the initial franchise than we had originally proposed. The amendment extends the period from 12 to 15 years. It covers only the initial licence period.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry will make similar extensions to the telecommunications licences to bring them into line, although that does not involve any change in the law. For tree and branch systems the licence period will be extended from 12 to 15 years and for switched-star systems from 20 to 23 years.

Mr. Austin Mitchell: The Minister has cobbled together an extraordinary Bill for our delectation. This amendment is perhaps symbolic of cobbling together, because we have finished up with a process which is similar to what my grandmother used to embark upon—making bedspreads. She would obtain a bit of cloth, something she had inherited from her grandmother—the wisdom of the independent television legislation, bits from the BBC and from overseas —a bit of cloth from her mother, and a bit of cloth from interested parties, and there they would be gathering round like bees around the honeypot. She would have a few suggestions from the Home Secretary, which would be incomprehensible as usual, she would stitch them together and finish up with something—these days it would probably be in a folk museum—which I thought was horrible at the time. And so is this legislation. None of the pieces fitted. It was the product of a series of afterthoughts. That is what the Minister has given us with the Bill.
Amendment No. 6 is perhaps the most monstrous of the afterthoughts because of the processes by which it was conceived. They were processes which cast a sad light on the way that the Government function, and particularly their vulnerability to pressure from the vested interests of members of the Conservative party who have nothing else to do to keep them off the streets but to press the Government to give favours to their friends. That is what they did in Committee. It was a repellant process, and it culminated in this extension of the cable franchise from 12 to 15 years. The Minister presents it as a considered response after long and reasoned discussion, but it is a humiliating collapse of any interest in standards before the pressure of his hon. Friends in Committee and outside.
The amendment is a mixture of organisational incompetence and the afterthoughts of the Home Office. The number of amendments with which we are dealing today is an appalling reflection on the way that the Bill has

been prepared. We had 79 amendments on the last day in Committee. We now have this series of amendments. This is no way to pass legislation and provide for the future of a service which will have an important influence on the life of the country and on all our lives. It has been provided for in bits and pieces, by stitching and cobbling together. It is partly the result of administrative incompetence, but it is due also to a lack of co-ordination between different Government Departments.
The Prime Minister's initial manic enthusiasm for cable television was as bright and unfixed as her eyes, to paraphrase Pope. That enthusiasm passed from cable to direct broadcasting by satellite and left the Home Office struggling with legislation that the Prime Minister had especially wanted to rush through to suit her own enthusiasm. However, she failed to communicate her enthusiasm to the Treasury. The Chancellor of the Exchequer's best friends would not say that his greatest penchant was to listen to advice or counsel from others. He formulated his Budget strategy, part of which wipes out in two stages the investment allowances. Those who had applied for cable franchises had predicated their financial forecasts, profitability and date of breaking even on those investment allowances. By eliminating capital allowances the Chancellor of the Exchequer effectively knocked for six the calculations of the cable applicants.
The Government were faced with the humiliating climb-down of having one length of time for those who promised to use one system of cabling and another period of time for those who promised to use the superior system of cabling. It was a carrot to lure them from the tree and branch system to the star system. The Government had carefully worked out that strategy, but were forced to climb down and abandon their initial inclination to 12 years. They changed it at the behest of their supporters who are sitting gloating on the Back Benches, as they did in Committee, at the success of their pressure group tactics to get special concessions for their friends. The Government gave way, and that concession is made manifest in amendment No. 6. Because that was the process, because it is a concession to vested interests and because it is an ill-considered step, I advise my hon. Friends — not exactly tumultuously assembled — to oppose the concession.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 202, Noes 79.

Division No. 397]
[9.12 pm


AVES


Alexander, Richard
Cope, John


Alton, David
Cranborne, Viscount


Atkins, Rt Hon Sir H.
Dykes, Hugh


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Eggar, Tim


Bellingham, Henry
Emery, Sir Peter


Body, Richard
Farr, Sir John


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Favell, Anthony


Brinton, Tim
Fenner, Mrs Peggy


Brittan, Rt Hon Leon
Fletcher, Alexander


Brown, M. (Brigg &amp; Cl'thpes)
Fookes, Miss Janet


Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon A.
Forth, Eric


Budgen, Nick
Fox, Marcus


Burt, Alistair
Franks, Cecil


Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)
Freeman, Roger


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Freud, Clement


Cash, William
Gale, Roger


Chapman, Sydney
Gardner, Sir Edward (Fylde)


Chope, Christopher
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Cockeram, Eric
Goodlad, Alastair


Colvin, Michael
Gorst, John


Coombs, Simon
Gregory, Conal






Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)
Nelson, Anthony


Ground, Patrick
Neubert, Michael


Grylls, Michael
Nicholls, Patrick


Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)
Norris, Steven


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Onslow, Cranley


Hanley, Jeremy
Oppenheim, Philip


Haselhurst, Alan
Ottaway, Richard


Hawkins, C. (High Peak)
Page, Richard (Herts SW)


Hawkins, Sir Paul (SW N'folk)
Parris, Matthew


Hawksley, Warren
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Hayes, J.
Percival, Rt Hon Sir Ian


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Pollock, Alexander


Heddle, John
Powell, William (Corby)


Henderson, Barry
Powley, John


Hickmet, Richard
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg


Hicks, Robert
Proctor, K. Harvey


Hind, Kenneth
Raffan, Keith


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Rhodes James, Robert


Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Holt, Richard
Ridsdale, Sir Julian


Hooson, Tom
Rifkind, Malcolm


Howarth, Alan (Stratf"d-on-A)
Robinson, Mark (N'port W)


Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)
Roe, Mrs Marion


Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)
Ryder, Richard


Howells, Geraint
Sackville, Hon Thomas


Hubbard-Miles, Peter
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Sayeed, Jonathan


Hunter, Andrew
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Johnson-Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Johnston, Russell
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Jones, Robert (W Herts)
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Kennedy, Charles
Spencer, Derek


Key, Robert
Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)


King, Roger (B'ham N'field)
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


King, Rt Hon Tom
Stanbrook, Ivor


Kirkwood, Archy
Steel, Rt Hon David


Knight, Gregory (Derby N)
Steen, Anthony


Knight, Mrs Jill (Edgbaston)
Stern, Michael


Knowles, Michael
Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)


Knox, David
Stevens, Martin (Fulham)


Latham, Michael
Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)


Lawler, Geoffrey
Stradling Thomas, J.


Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)
Sumberg, David


Lester, Jim
Taylor, John (Solihull)


Lightbown, David
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Lilley, Peter
Temple-Morris, Peter


Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)
Terlezki, Stefan


Lord, Michael
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter


Luce, Richard
Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)


Lyell, Nicholas
Thorne, Neil (llford S)


McCurley, Mrs Anna
Thornton, Malcolm


Macfarlane, Neil
Thurnham, Peter


MacGregor, John
Townend, John (Bridlington)


MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)
Tracey, Richard


Maclean, David John
Trotter, Neville


Maclennan, Robert
Twinn, Dr Ian


McQuarrie, Albert
Waddington, David


Major, John
Wainwright, R.


Malins, Humfrey
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Malone, Gerald
Walden, George


Maples, John
Walker, Bill (T"side N)


Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Wall, Sir Patrick


Mather, Carol
Waller, Gary


Maude, Hon Francis
Ward, John


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Wardle, C. (Bexhill)


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Warren, Kenneth


Merchant, Piers
Watson, John


Mills, Iain (Meriden)
Watts, John


Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)
Wells, Bowen (Hertford)


Moate, Roger
Wheeler, John


Montgomery, Fergus
Whitfield, John


Morris, M. (N'hampton, S)
Whitney, Raymond


Moynihan, Hon C.
Wiggin, Jerry


Mudd, David
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Murphy, Christopher
Wolfson, Mark


Neale, Gerrard
Wood, Timothy


Needham, Richard
Woodcock, Michael





Yeo, Tim
Tellers for the Ayes:


Young, Sir George (Acton)
Mr. Donald Thompson and Mr. Ian Lang.




NOES


Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)
Hughes, Dr. Mark (Durham)


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)


Barron, Kevin
Lamond, James


Beckett, Mrs Margaret
Leighton, Ronald


Benn, Tony
Lewis, Terence (Worsley)


Bermingham, Gerald
Litherland, Robert


Boyes, Roland
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Bray, Dr Jeremy
McKay, Allen (Penistone)


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Mackenzie, Rt Hon Gregor


Brown, N. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne E)
McTaggart, Robert


Caborn, Richard
Madden, Max


Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd &amp; M)
Maxton, John


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Michie, William


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Mitchell, Austin (G 't Grimsby)


Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.)
Nellist, David


Cohen, Harry
O'Brien, William


Cook, Frank (Stockton North)
Parry, Robert


Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)
Pavitt, Laurie


Corbett, Robin
Pike, Peter


Cowans, Harry
Prescott, John


Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)
Redmond, M,


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'l)
Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)


Deakins, Eric
Ross, Ernest (Dundee W)


Dormand, Jack
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Eadie, Alex
Skinner, Dennis


Eastham, Ken
Smith, C.(Isl'ton S &amp; F'bury)


Evans, John (St. Helens N)
Smith, Rt Hon J. (M'kl'ds E)


Ewing, Harry
Soley, Clive


Fatchett, Derek
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


Faulds, Andrew
Thompson, J. (Wansbeck)


Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)
Tinn, James


Forrester, John
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Foster, Derek
Wareing, Robert


George, Bruce
Wigley, Dafydd


Golding, John
Wilson, Gordon


Gould, Bryan
Winnick, David


Gourlay, Harry
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Hamilton, James (M'well N)



Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Tellers for the Noes:


Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)
Mr. Frank Haynes and Mr. Don Dixon.


Home Robertson, John



Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)

Question accordingly agreed to.

Mr. Hurd: I beg to move amendment No. 8, in page 4, line 33 leave out second `a' and insert `the'.

Mr. Speaker: With this we may discuss Government amendment No. 9.

Mr. Hurd: These are both minor, technical amendments which simply improve the drafting of clause 4 in two places.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment made: No. 9 in page 5, line 2 leave out
`by virtue of that paragraph in a licence'
and insert
'in a licence by virtue of that paragraph'.—[Mr. Hurd.]

Mr. Hurd: I beg to move amendment No. 10, in page 5, line 10 at end insert—
'(6A) The payment or payments required to be rendered to the Authority by conditions included in a licence by virtue of subsection (5)(b) above shall be such as to represent what appears to the Authority to be the appropriate contribution of the holder of the licence towards meeting the sums which the Authority regard as necessary in order to discharge their duty under section 18(1) below. '.
In Committee some of my hon. Friends were worried that the Cable Authority's powers to charge licence fees might provide it with money with which it could make


grants or subsidies. The Bill gives the authority no power to make such grants. Therefore, on re-examination we remain satisfied that there is no need to write anything specific into the Bill precluding it from doing something which it has no power to do. However, in the light of the Committee's discussions, we accepted that there was some advantage in inserting in the Bill an explicit link between the authority's power to raise fees from its licensees and its financial duties in clause 18. That point was particularly emphasised by my hon. Friend the Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Neale) — hence the amendment, which introduces a new subsection into clause 4 making it absolutely clear that each licence fee is to represent what the authority thinks is the licence holder's appropriate contribution towards the costs incurred by the authority in discharging its duty.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 7

MATTERS TO BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT

Mr. Hurd: I beg to move amendment No. 14, in page 6, line 34, leave out from 'the' to `to' in line 16 on page 7 and insert
`extent to which the applicant or each applicant proposes to do the following things, namely'—

(a) to include a range and diversity of programmes;
(b) to include in the programmes matter which originates within the European Economic Community and is performed by nationals of member States;
(c) to include in the programmes an increasing proportion of such matter;
(d) to include programmes of an educational nature, programmes calculated to appeal specially to the taste and outlook of persons living in the area and programmes in which such persons are given an opportunity to participate;
(e) to include programmes provided otherwise than by himself or by associates of his;
(f) to include programmes provided by local voluntary associations and to assist such organisations in the preparation and production of programmes;
(g) to include in the programmes matter which is calculated to promote the understanding or enjoyment of programmes by persons who are deaf;
(h)'.
This amendment reflects a concern expressed in the other place and in Standing Committee, and one which found a special echo on the Opposition Benches. We are dealing here with the duty of the Cable Authority to encourage domestic programme material on cable. We are as anxious as anyone that cable should stimulate the home production industry. That is why the Bill already imposes three duties on the authority in this respect. First, it must, under clause 10(1)(d), see that cable operators include proper proportions of British and other EEC material in their programmes. This is the same formula as the statutory duty on the IBA in the Broadcasting Act, and it will be for the Cable Authority, like the IBA, to interpret its duty in the light of all these relevant factors.
The second duty already in the Bill is to take account at the licensing stage of applicants' proposals for home programmes. Finally, the authority must include in its annual report to the Home Secretary an account of how it has carried out its duty to see that proper proportions of domestic material are included in cable programmes.
In the White Paper we recognised that in the early years cable would have to rely on a greater proportion of imported material than later on. That is for two reasons. The first is that the domestic production industry will take time to adjust. The second is that cable companies will have less money to spend on programmes in the early years while they are establishing themselves than they will later on. They may have to buy quite a lot of material off the shelf, and that may mean to a considerable extent from overseas. That is why we resisted the idea of a fixed quota, and continue to do so.
In the White Paper we thought in terms of a duty on the authority to work over the years towards an increase in the amount of British programming used on cable, but it was difficult to find statutory language for that thought. Following the concern expressed in several parts of the House and in the other place, we thought it right to look at this again, and this amendment is the result. It adds a new duty to those that I have mentioned already at the licensing stage requiring the authority to take into account not only applicants' proposals to include British and other EEC programme material, but their proposals to include an increasing proportion of such material. In addition, the duty of the authority is to consider the extent to which an increase is proposed, so that if an applicant could show that he intended to show a high proportion from the beginning obviously the authority would not have to look for any increase.
This extra provision, added to those that I have already listed, goes as far as it is reasonable to go in insisting upon a proportion of British and EEC material. It will provide an encouragement to home production.

Mr. Freud: Although no penalty will be incurred for not broadcasting EEC originating material, I accept that the Government have honoured their commitment in Committee to see that the principle is enshrined in the process of licence granting. I think that the Opposition would have preferred a heavier duty on the cable operator to carry EEC originating material, and it would not have been very difficult—I accept the Government's desire to keep the arm's length principle and not interfere—to impose a series of fines for exceeding some reasonable quota such as 20 per cent.
It has always been a good Liberal principle that, for instance, under a statutory incomes policy anybody who would like to pay more money should be allowed to do so, provided that a share of that increment goes in taxation. We should have considered that an infinitely preferable way to leaving the matter in the hands of the people concerned. However, I accept that it is better than it was, but I am sorry that it is not better still.

Mr. Austin Mitchell: It was said that when Sir Frank Stenton was writing his history of Anglo-Saxon England he used to read each chapter out to his wife at night and if there was anything of which she disapproved, she, his bitter critic and strongest censor, would say "Frank, that is not worthy of you." We must say that to the Minister on this occasion.
After all the argument in Committee for a stronger commitment to British production, which is the essential thing that we want to stimulate in the Bill, the Minister has provided the minimum encouragement that he possibly can. He has responded generously to all the pressures from


the vested interests, which are still with us like a chorus of angels—perhaps a demi-monde of angels—but to the arguments for British production, for real concern for public service broadcasting, for a real improvement in the quality of the lives of our people, he has responded not at all. He has maintained a straight bat although he was faced with overwhelming pressure in Committee to encourage production in Britain.
The expenses of cable, putting the money underground rather than into production, will be such that there will be no surplus available to encourage production in Britain. That is where cable will be at its weakest. One imagines shoddy, ad hoc, makeshift arrangements. There will not be the kind of finance that, for instance, Channel 4 has provided for independent production, which has been a big stimulus to independent production in Britain. The Prime Minister, having visited the Limehouse studios, waxed eloquent about the need to encourage independent production and said that she would do something about it. Perhaps that is why the Minister has made this concession.
That is an achievement on the Prime Minister's part but it is not enough, first because of the way that the Minister has gone about it. He has put in at this stage that the authority must take production into consideration when it is considering applicants. We all know the sort of promises that are made by applicants. They are anxious to get licences, because they hope to make money. It might be a licence to die-stamp halfpennies in the case of cable television, rather than print pounds, but they are anxious to get a licence and they make promises. If they do not live up to those promises there is no effective way of disciplining them. If commercial television, which has been lucrative and which has made an enormous amount of money for nearly all the companies, cannot be disciplined it will be even more difficult in cable where much of the investment is simply buried under the ground by the cable company. London Weekend reneged on its promises of 1968 and TV-am reneged more recently and more massively on its promises.
It is not adequate just to look to the promises that are held out. We must have the effective sanction of a continuous control over performance. The Minister has not allowed that. Every company will promise a substantial contribution to British domestic production but there is no machinery by which the Minister can make them live up to that promise. That is the first mistake.
The second mistake is not to insist on a fixed and steadily escalating quota for British production — the kind of quota system that operates for independent television. It might be too ambitious because there will be a need to buy the surplus production of American industry just to keep the cable companies going. If it is too ambitious, let us fix a lower quota, but let us set a figure that is a bench mark up to which the companies have to live.
For those two reasons, the Minister's concession is late and inadequate. However, because it is a concession, we have to welcome it, however grudgingly. It is not enough, but we shall accept it as a minimal advance towards our point of view.

Mr. Hugh Dykes: I could have intervened in the speech of the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) with the point that I wish to make,

but it is better to make a short speech. Contrary to what he says, my right hon. Friend the Minister has got it right, and this amendment reflects the feelings and wishes of the Committee, and not just one side of it.
Yet again, the hon. Member is making the fatal mistake that members of the Labour party make. Because of their residual psychological problems, whenever they think about commercial television and how it got under way in the 1950s, they confuse the present situation with that sellers' market of a brilliant new development of private commercial television which was quite different from the public service broadcasting that had existed a few years before that. In 1957, as a powerful entity with a tremendous cash flow, commercial television could offer the public what they wanted. However, because of the high standards of broadcasting through the BBC before that, the public were fortunate enough to have, despite advertisements and all the rest of the razzmatazz, a good commercial service in comparison with other countries such as the United States of America and Australia.
We are now confronted with a different scheme. Tremulous, timid intermediate franchise applicants are fearful of even starting contracts in cable television. They are worried about the future and how they will make any money, let alone the rest. That is not just because, as the hon. Member for Great Grimsby said, most of the money will go under ground. He is confusing another important point there.
There will be a buyers' market this time. We do not even know how round one will go, and there is no Cable Authority or structure yet. Demanding potential subscribers will be obliged to pay between £10 and £12 a month for a year's subscription, and they will insist on quality stuff. The idea that they will put up with just having American and EEC surpluses and not good British products is illusory.
I do not wish to repeat the discussions that we have had in Committee. However, the hon. Member for Great Grimsby has got it wrong. It is better not to have a percentage figure for a quota, which would be inflexible and rigid. It is better to see how cable television develops. We are legislating for an extremely sophisticated service, and the danger is that the way things are going the cable television industry will not even start.

Mr. Bermingham: To present a picture such as that presented by the hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes), of cable companies, production companies and service companies as timorous creatures venturing with timid toes towards the tepid water, is to screen reality. The reality, as those hon. Members who sat on the Committee will know only too well, is that the decorative PR experts who buzzed around the Committee corridors — and Adam Raphael got it right in The Guardian last weekend — put pressure, by way of word and letter, on the members of the Committee to demonstrate how so much was needed to finance this and that. Commercial concerns have a great interest in making money out of cable television.
Those of us who looked with some care at the problems of cable television are well aware that the market is for the products that are already produced. We have pressed the Government to protect the content of the British home production. It is a simple economic fact that unless one has a safe home market, the export potential is not great. The great strength of our export potential in the commercial


production of television programmes and other shows has been that the BBC and the IBA have devoted about 85 per cent. of their time to British products. Therefore, producers in this country had a market.
The Government have surrendered to the pressure of the cable operators who claim that because the industry is in its early days they must be permitted to buy, produce and show the cheapest products. Anyone who has seen the test transmissions of satellite television on the continent or the examples of cable programmes from America and Canada will know that their quality is zero compared with ours.
We have sought time and again to press the Government at least to provide a minimum starting figure of home content. The amendment goes a little way down the road by providing that programmes must include an increasing proportion of home content. But if companies start at zero and add 1 per cent. per annum, they will not progress far. That is the fear of many of my hon. Friends.
Therefore, we put down the marker and say that if companies do not live up to their promise to increase the home content and do not increase it substantially over the period of their franchises, that fact must be taken into account if they seek to renew their franchises. A minimum level of home content could be included in the Bill. It would not be unreasonable to write in 15, 20 or 30 per cent. as a starting figure, rising over the franchise period to the level achieved by the BBC and the IBA.
If we are to protect our fledgling producers, we must give them an incentive. A new market is opening up, but what will it contain? Will it be only second-rate B-movies from the United States which have already been shown on other types of television? If so, cable will be its own worst enemy.
It is no good starting at the bottom of the pile. If we are to have a quality service and protect the standard of service in this country, we must pitch the starting point a little higher. We do not propose to divide against the amendment. We are grateful for the small movement in our direction, but we do not think that it is enough. We shall watch what happens and we reserve the right to refer back to our remarks if that should prove necessary.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Freud: I beg to move amendment No. 16, in page 7, line 17, at end insert'

'(h) The extent to which the applicant or each applicant proposes to provide, or secure the provision of, information about community activities in the area
(i) The extent to which and the time within which the applicant or each applicant will provide the service throughout the area.
(j) The extent to which the applicant or each applicant will have adequate financial resources and a significant level of local ownership amongst its shareholders.
(k) The size of the area and the extent to which the area contains localities with different degrees of profit potential.
(l) Whether more than one licence can be granted to avoid the creation of a monopoly.
(m) The extent to which the applicant or each applicant is independent of other holders of a licence for a prescribed diffusion service both as to finance and control.'
Clause 7 is still largely toothless. It does not even cover and protect the interests of the community that is supposed to benefit from cable as a local and regional operation.
The amendment seeks to lend a modicum of social conscience to phrases in the Bill that will change the course of broadcasting, leisure and entertainment —providing that the operators do not go bust first. I

welcomed the amendment giving the operators an extra three years in which to organise their affairs. My right hon. and hon. Friends and I voted with the Government on that amendment.
My amendment proposes to add paragraphs (h) to (m) to the Government's paragraphs (a) to (g) and specifically provides that the Cable Authority shall take into account aspects of responsibility which, at present, it has no duty to take into account. I would particularly like the Government to look again at the need to consider
the provision of … information about community activities in the area".
No communicator shall be exonerated from a certain sense of duty. In this instance, the duty to provide accurate and and up-to-date information should be something which the authority considers. My paragraph (i) refers to
the time within which the applicant … will provide the service throughout the area.
Here again, I am concerned that people will do what some television companies did. I am sorry if the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) has still not been paid by TV-am.

Mr. Austin Mitchell: I have. Has the hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, North-East (Mr. Freud) been paid?

Mr. Freud: Yes, I have. It is crucial that the timing within which an applicant provides the service should be part and parcel of the investigation which the authority makes before awarding a franchise.
I talked in Committee about the need for
adequate financial resources and a significant level of local ownership".
My constituency is still feeling the reverberations of the occasion on which a large company went bankrupt, doing infinite harm to the community. Because of the total absence of local directors, the bankruptcy came as a surprise to the community. Because there was no communication with the local people, people who would have lost £10,000 or £20,000 lost much greater sums and, in some cases, met their total demise as traders. When applications are being considered, it would be of great advantage to communities if directors of companies were locally based, had local interests and could reflect the prosperity or misery of a company at the time.
I will not press the amendment to a Division, because it is the ambition of my party and of the Social Democratic party to see the Bill on the statute book. In some cases, we should like to see more rigid control; in others, less interference. Perhaps those appointed by the Minister will bear it in mind that, even if they do not have a responsibility, they have a duty.

Mr. Hurd: I hope that it does not depress the hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, North-East (Mr. Freud) if I say that he has usually taken a realistic and level-headed view of different proposals for improving the Bill.
In this case, there were originally five specific factors in the Bill to which the Cable Authority had to give particular attention at the licensing stage. Two more were added in another place, and we have just added another. That makes eight. The hon. Gentleman wishes to bring the total to 14. I feel sure that he will agree that the more factors one adds to the list, the less important each one becomes. If we succumb to the hon. Gentleman's recommendations, a process of inflation will set in.
Although the obligations in the Bill are not as specific as the hon. Gentleman would like, they cover most of the points that he wishes to include. The hon. Gentleman mentioned information on community activities. That does not add much to paragraphs (c) and (e) of subsection (2) — to become (d) and (f) — which talk about local programmes and
programmes provided by local voluntary organisations".
The rate at which cable services will be brought to the area is important. It is something which the Cable Authority will want to consider, as is the need to avoid the careation of monopolies. However, all those points fall naturally under the general duty of the authority to promote cable services under clause 4(8). The hon. Gentleman repeated the point that he made in Committee, which some of us found a little difficult to follow, about local ownership and the psychological value of locally involved and committed directors. That could be left to the general framework laid down for the authority. It is not the ownership of shares that matters as much as the commitment of the company and its staff to provide a good local service.
Although I accept, without being patronising, that the hon. Gentleman's heart is in the right place, when the people who eventually form the authority take away the Hansards of these debates before entering their duties, they will notice what the hon. Gentleman has said. I believe that his aim is covered by the Bill as it stands.

Mr. Freud: I wish that I could say that I am immensely relieved by what the Minister has said. I am fractionally reassured that, if people read Hansard, they will see the thrust of my argument. The Minister said that it is not the ownership but the commitment that counts. Ownership does a terrific amount for commitment. There is no better commitment than that which derives from owning shares and a pecuniary interest in a company. Nevertheless, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 8

RESTRICTIONS ON THE HOLDING OF LICENCES.

Mr. Austin Mitchell: I beg to move, amendment No. 17, in page 7, line 34, after 'Community', insert
`and had no shareholding of over 10 per cent. controlled from outside it'.
The amendment would tighten the provisions that regulate the amount of non-EEC involvement in cable companies. There is a danger that if the cable industry faces financial difficulties—as all the prognostications seem to indicate that it will—American or Canadian production companies that have an interest in getting secure access to outlets in Britain will attempt to buy, take over or increase their stakes in companies here. The enormous development in programming will come from America and Canada. Although, through clause 8, the Government clearly intend to reduce foreign involvement, I am worried whether clause 8 is strict enough. Amendment No. 17 looks as though it has been written by the Welsh language lobby as it reads:
no shareholding of over 10 per cent. controlled from outside it".

Tightening regulations in that way would prevent shell companies from outside taking a stake in cable companies and prevent overseas companies from building up their shareholding and hence their influence.
I do not intend to push amendment No. 17 to a Division —I merely want the Minister to define how he regards the provisions against overseas involvement, especially overseas control, operating. Does he think that the Bill as it stands is adequate to prevent the type of contingency that might arise if cable companies are in financial difficulties?

Mr. Hurd: The hon. Gentleman says that this is a tightening amendment. I agree. It would throttle some interests that will want legitimately to provide a cable service. We have always said that we do not think it right for cable companies to come under foreign control. Clause 8 closely follows section 20 of the Broadcasting Act 1981 in that respect as it precludes cable companies from being controlled by bodies outside the EC. The hon. Gentleman wants to change that by limiting any foreign shareholding to 10 per cent. or less. The Cable Authority will seek companies that are committed to providing the best possible services for the area concerned. It will be under no obligation to welcome every company that comes along with foreign shareholdings of slightly less than 50 per cent. The authority will want to form a view of what is best for the local community. Even after a licence has been issued, it can revoke it in the last resort. It would be able to do so if there were a change in the ownership arrangements which caused the authority to issue the licence.
It would be throttling to impose a rigid 10 per cent. ceiling. If such a ceiling had been imposed on independent local radio, admirable companies might have been prevented from continuing. The answer lies in control, and the hon. Gentleman's definition of 10 per cent. is far too strict.

Mr. Austin Mitchell: The Minister has provided an explanation that is not fully satisfactory. We know that a Canadian shareholding has been built up in some of the local radio stations. The authority will have to act in the light of the available applicants. If there is only one applicant and that company has an element of foreign shareholding, the authority will be forced to accept that company. That is not an especially sound defence against overseas interests. However, the amendment was intended to probe rather than to throttle, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendments made: No. 18A, in page 9, leave out lines 12 to 24.

No. 19, in page 9, line 19, leave out first 'in'.

No. 20, in line 19, leave out 'or in relation to'.

No. 21, in line 26, leave out 'in'.

No. 22, in line 27, leave out 'or in relation to'.

No. 23, in line 27, at end insert

'(8) In this section "cinematograph film", "record" and "sound recording" have the same meanings as in the Copyright Act 1956 (in this Act referred to as "the 1956 Act");'—[Mr. Hurd.]

Clause 10

GENERAL PROVISIONS AS TO PROGRAMMERS

Mr. Bermingham: I beg to move amendment No. 25, in page 10, line 24, at end insert—



`(e) that any games of chance, lotteries, football pools, betting, bingo, newspaper or other prize competitions be not permitted whether or not they require a payment in order to participate, except for competitions involving studio audience participation.'

Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments:No. 27, in clause 11, page 10, line 40, at end insert—

(d) as to rules and practices governing the playing of all games of chance, lotteries, football pools, betting, bingo, newspaper or other prize competitions, whether or not they require a payment in order to participate. '.

No. 101, in clause 38, page 34, line 2, at end insert—
`(3) the IBA shall not permit the use of DBS services for any games of chance, lotteries, football pools, betting, bingo, newspaper or other prize competitions whether or not they require a payment in order to participate, except for competitions involving studio audience participation.'

Mr. Bermingham: We are worried about the growing habit of conducting bingo games through various national newspapers. There is the £1 million lottery game and The Times has introduced its share competition and issued little pieces of plastic. We are worried that such competitions will become the daily fare of cable television.

Mr. Eric Forth: So what?

Mr. Bermingham: This might cause people to spend much of their time in the evening waiting for the next bingo number to appear. It could be arranged for the number to appear at 9.15 or 9.30 in the evening in the middle of an advertisement, and people would stay at home so that they might see the number and telephone the company to claim their prize.

Mr. Forth: So what?

Mr. Bermingham: The hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Forth) is being his usual intellectual and eloquent self in continuing to say "So what?". If he had taken part in our discussions prior to his recent appearance in the Chamber he would realise that many of us are aware that there are other forms of entertainment, such as football matches, theatres, bingo halls and cinemas, which provide employment and offer considerable enjoyment. If viewers know that there is a chance that their number will appear, provided that they are watching cable television between 9.17 and 9.19 in the evening, for example, and that they might win a prize if they telephone the company at the appropriate time, there will be an incentive for them to remain at home.
These fears are echoed throughout the Labour party and in many non-political groups. It seems reasonable that when cable television comes to fruition it should provide entertainment. It should not be a form of gambling. If people want to gamble, there are appropriate places for it. Whereas one would not object to a show with audience participation—the sort of quiz that we now have on BBC and ITV—one would very much object to the medium of cable being used for lotteries an gaming. There would be loss of revenue to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but apart from that the whole ethos of gambling would be developed in that way, and it would not be in the interests of society generally. Therefore, we ask the Government again to accept the spirit and intention behind the amendments.

It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
That, at this day's sitting, the Cable and Broadcasting Bill [Lords] and the consideration of Lords Amendments to Commons Amendments to the Agricultural Holdings Bill [Lords] may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any limn —[Mr. Sainsbury.]

Cable and Broadcasting Bill [Lords]

Again considered.

Question again proposed, That the amendment be made.

Mr. David Harris: I was not prompted to get to my feet until the remarks of the hon. Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham) in moving the amendment. I confess that I have not studied his amendment and I have not studied the Bill. What I End completely offensive about the amendment is the typical attitude of Socialists that somehow they know best and should dictate to this House and to people who watch television. I do not think that I shall ever watch cable television when it is introduced. I have no particular views on the various competitions that are popping up in newspapers, let alone something called "Portfolio" in The Times. I have yet to understand it and could not care less about it.
What I find completely and utterly objectionable is that the hon. Member should somehow think, with all the wisdom that he commands, that he should dictate what people should watch, read and so on. For that reason alone I hope that the House will reject his amendment, but I suspect that he will withdraw it in any case.

Mr. Hurd: As has been said, the amendment was discussed in Committee. Since then I have had a useful meeting with the National Association of Licensed Bingo and Social Clubs and the British Bingo Association. I arts not persuaded, after considering the matter again, that there is room or need for a change in the Bill.
There are laws on gambling in Britain, and have been for a long time. The reason for legislation on gambling is the worry that people might fall into difficulty or misery from the hazarding of a stake. The whole of the gambling legislation is built round that principle, and it will apply to cable if a stake is hazarded.
It is an offence under the Gaming Act 1968 to engage in commercial gaming other than on premises which are licensed or registered under that Act. Participation must be confined to club members or their bona fide guests, who must be present on the authorised premises. That means that it would be unlawful to offer cable customers the opportunity of participating in commercial gaming, including bingo, involving the placing of a stake of their own, from their homes.
The Opposition have not been particularly concerned with gambling as defined in the legislation which the House has already passed. As for other forms of gaming where there is no gambling as so defined, I do not believe that there are sound reasons for subjecting people to some special kind of control.
There is the argument that the games will in some way be unfair to the gambling industry proper, but any company with interests in the gambling industry can diversify into the parallel area of non-gambling competitions. Therefore, I do not think that it is a strong point.

Mr. Austin Mitchell: Is the Minister saying that, if a cable company wants to build up its audience, provided that people are not putting up the money, it can give out numbers during the evening and a prize, donated by itself, to the first person to complete the card?

Mr. Hurd: I shall come to that point in a moment. It follows logically from the criticism that has been made.
In Committee the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell) talked of the unfairness of a possible cable competition which was funded by sponsors, so that the individual, sitting at home, did not have to hazard a stake. Certainly that would rightly fall outwith the gambling legislation, because there would not be an individual stake. One cannot really argue that gambling should be prevented on cable in the interests of horse racing or of any other industry. If we followed that argument, we would rapidly come to the conclusion that all cable was bad because it lured people from cinemas, video shops or pubs. It is not our role, or that of the House, to make up people's minds for them, as to where they should seek their leisure. It is not for us to restrict their freedom of choice.

Mr. Denis Howell: Can the Minister kindly clear up the confusion arising from his speech? He now says that it is justified to have national lotteries if there is no stake, but a few moments ago I understood him to be saying that it would be unlawful anyway under the Act and that such competitions could not be organised. Will such lotteries, without a stake, be lawful on cable television under the terms of this measure?

Mr. Hurd: One of the points that I have been trying to make is that where gambling is involved existing gambling legislation will apply. The sort of competitions which the bingo industry fears will take away some of its business, which the right hon. Gentleman mentioned in Committee, and which the hon. Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham) referred to, are not gambling as defined by the House. The competitions do not involve placing a stake. Therefore, gambling legislation will not apply.
The point that I was making when the right hon. Member for Small Heath intervened was that we would not be justified in telling cable operators that they must not provide this sort of entertainment simply because it might detract from the prosperity or well-being of other, competing leisure industries. That is an important principle.
I should like to reply to the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell). If someone applied to the Cable Authority for a franchise and said that he proposed to offer wall-to-wall bingo or some other surfeit or excess in a gambling operation, it is clear that he would not meet the criteria for a franchise, which have already been set out by the House.

Mr. Austin Mitchell: rose—

Mr. Hurd: I know what the hon. Member is going to say. Perhaps I can anticipate him, and he can tell me whether I am right. He will say that someone will get a franchise on a highly respectable basis and will then slip, as it were, bit by bit into wall-to-wall bingo. As the hon. Gentleman knows from his close study of the Bill, the authority is to monitor that sort of application and to tell people not to do such things. In the last resort, if they defy

the authority's directions, it can take away a franchise. There will not be the blanket prohibition which the Opposition amendment seeks to impose, but the authority will be able to chack any excess in that direction if it went beyond the purposes of the Bill.

Mr. Austin Mitchell: I must confess that the Minister was half right about the point of my intervention, but what he says does not really answer the point. Bingo is the recourse of the financially desperate; witness the Daily Express and the Daily Mail, those declining giants which are desperately trying to build up their circulation. They have recourse to bingo. It will be the same for the cable companies. They will use bingo to build up their audiences when they face financial difficulties. In that situation the authority will have little control over them, because they will be in financial difficulties. If it does not allow then to have programme bingo, if not a wall-to-wall bingo, they will go bust, and nobody will be left to run the contracts. I that happens, what will the authority do?

Mr. Hurd: I sympathise with the bingo companies, which dislike newspaper bingo, but not even the hon. Gentleman is suggesting that we should introduce a clause forbidding newspapers from offering bingo. We can sympathise with this or that part of the entertainment industry as it tries to capture the leisure hours of our constituents. They must be thinking, "Damn this form of new competition. It must be unfair." Whatever our personal sympathies may be, it is not part of our job to define how people should spend their evenings or holidays. Because we believe that that underlies the Opposition amendment, we feel bound to reject it.

Mr. John Gorst: I had not intended to put forward arguments that I have already adduced in Commitee, but my right hon. Friend must accept that when we produce a technological revolution that enables things to be done without regulation which, were they to be done in public places would require regulation, control and surveillance by gaming boards, we have two different standards for people who are competing with one another. The point that arises from this series of amendments, and which arose in Committee, is one of parity of treatment between people who are in competition with one another.
If the Minister's answer is that he does not feel that there is an obligation to produce regulation or in any way inhibit cable, the alternative consequence must be, as we argued on other amendments, a consideration in future of a measure of deregulation in other areas. That proposition does not appeal greatly to Opposition Members, but in all logic this matter arises on this series of amendments and others. If we make technological progress, we also affect other interests that might have existed for some time or might have been newly created. When technological progress comes along, we must not disadvantage companies already in existence by means of unfair competition. The Home Office must consider that point in relation to those whose interests are affected by the Bill.

Mr. Denis Howell: I could not agree more with what has just been said by the hon. Member for Hendon, North (Mr. Gorst). I was astonished by what the Minister said. He told us that all the multi-million pound gambling interests, which are carefully regulated and, in many cases, make considerable contributions to sport and other areas of activity as part of their fundamental operation,


could be subjected to gambling without a stake, on cable television. That is totally new in this country. It is true that it has grown up in the newspapers. However, I think that most of the newspapers involved now wish that they had never started as it has become a monster that they cannot control. It has even spread to The Times, which now has Portfolio — rather a stupid name. One can only say "Good luck" to The Times.
However, people will watch cable television hour after hour. If bingo without a stake is provided, it will be a totally different ball game. As we heard from the organisation that the Minister saw the other day and that I also saw on behalf of the Opposition, there is a tremendous abuse of that type of sponsored betting on the other side of the Atlantic. For example, I am told that one cable television company produces three numbers during the course of the day—one in the morning, one in the afternoon and one in the evening. The whole audience is locked into that. The winners must claim their prize, which is substantial, the moment it is drawn.
The Home Office is supposed to be responsible for the whole of broadcasting policy. What will be the effect on the BBC and independent television if the new gambling media emerge in the way that I described? Initially, gambling will have a considerable effect on the audiences of the competing television companies, especially if there are prizes of the magnitude I suspect. Already, petrol companies are offering prizes of £21,000, newspaper bingo is offering a prize of £80,000 and I am advised that £1 million games are not unknown. We are playing a different ball game. It would be wrong for any sponsor to take over a cable television company and lock the audience in for the whole of the day. Conservative Members may think that because bingo is a legitimate activity, the bigger the prize the more legitimate it is.
10.15 pm
We must consider other issues apart from the effect the measure might have on existing television channels. What about the contribution of present forms of gambling to various sporting activities? The football pools are already taxed at 4·5 per cent., as was pointed out in an earlier debate today, yet they make a considerable contribution to football. Those pools will be faced with an unfair form of betting competition which will attract no tax. On top of the tax of 4·5 per cent. football pools contribute to the football league.
Horse racing is in a similar position. The betting tax is about 8·5 per cent., thereby making a considerable contribution to the welfare of horse racing. I have found, from being a member of a committee on racing, that most Conservative Members believe that that tax is an essential contribution to the future of racing. Why should people bet on horse races when free betting will be provided on cable television? The Government must bear that important factor in mind. The contributions made from existing forms of gambling are closely controlled—that is right —and are of great importance.
I do not believe that you, Mr. Speaker, have been to any bingo academies, and you probably, therefore, do not know much about such matters. I am sure, though, that you play bingo once or twice a week when you draw names out of the hat to decide who will participate in Adjournment or other debates. Your constituents, Mr. Speaker, and those of every other hon. Member in the Chamber go to a bingo hall not so much in anticipation of

winning, although that is a part of the reason, but for social purposes. In many ways, bingo provides an alternative to the pub. Our constituents go to meet people, to have a talk and to participate in bingo. That social purpose will be undermined if bingo is provided nationally on television without any contribution being paid.

Mr. Forth: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree with me that, conversely, those who are confined to the home because of illness or incapacity of any other kind might be grateful for the opportunity of enjoying a diversion through the use of cable television which they are unable to enjoy by leaving their home and enjoying the social environment of a normal bingo game? Are there not two sides to the coin?

Mr. Howell: I agree that people who are stuck at home because of physical or social adversity suffer many disadvantages, but we do not legislate to provide automatically for people because they suffer disadvantages from being at home. That is an illogical concept.
I am coming to the point that I thought the Under-Secretary of State was making. If he had done so, he would have carried us with him. If the new authority can regulate the way in which gambling is conducted on a cable programme, we shall be satisfied with that. All of us, the trade, and the football and racing authorities can make representations, and we shall all know where we stand. I know that the Bill emanated from another place and must return there. Will the Minister tell us, despite the remarks to which I have taken exception, that the Cable Authority will have power to regulate gambling on cable television channels. If that is the case, I shall rest content. If he tells us that the Cable Authority cannot regulate them, we shall be extremely unhappy. I must confess that we shall not vote against the amendment because of the civilised arrangements that we made through the usual channels to allow those of us interested in these matters to pursue our interests without inconvenience to the rest of the House. If I had not agreed to that earlier, I should have been ready to register my opposition in the Lobbies.
I hope that the Minister will tell us that it will be within the competence of the cable and DBS authorities to ensure that any gambling is strictly controlled. If the Minister confirms that, I shall be pleased to withdraw the amendment.

Mr. Freud: I support the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell) and point out that in this country there is only a limited amount of gambling capital available. At the moment that gaming capital AS distributed among social clubs, bingo, charitable swindles, small bookmakers and unlicensed greyhound tracks. When the hon. Member for Hendon, North (Mr. Gorst) argues in favour of deregulation, I should like to remind the Minister that that means that little people are knocked out and the large bookmakers, such as Ladbrokes which sponsors the hon. Member, are the beneficiaries.

Mr. Hurd: The Cable Authority has responsibility under clause 7 to issue franchises on certain criteria. I cannot see that a franchise bidder who said that he proposed to provide a gambling station would obtain a franchise. If later an undesirable predominance of what the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell) calls gambling crept in, the authority would have the power to give directions and enforce them in the last resort by revoking the licence.

Mr. Bermingham: In view of what the Minister has said, we do not propose to press the amendment to a Division; and therefore I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 12

ADVERTISEMENTS

Mr. Hurd: I beg to move amendment No. 30, in page 11, line 26, leave out from 'such' to end of line 28 and insert
'other bodies and persons concerned with standards of conduct in advertising as the Authority think fit'.
This is a small subsidiary amendment to a proposal made by my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham (Mr. Brinton), which is now part of clause 12, to extend the Cable Authority's duty of consultation when drawing up or revising its advertising code. As well as the IBA, the authority will have to consult other bodies concerned with advertising standards. We discussed this matter in some detail in Committee.
The amendment is a drafting amendment to adjust the wording of clause 12(1), but not its intended effect. The adjustment is twofold. First by inserting the reference to "other bodies" concerned with standards of conduct in advertising, it avoids the suggestion that the IBA is not such a body. I do not believe that that suggestion was ever made.
Secondly, it removes a slight awkwardness with the present wording which could be read as requiring the authority to consult every person or body which had relevant experience in regulating advertising standards. That might have been a clumsy provision and difficult to fulfil. The amendment is intended to correct that.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Brinton: I beg to move amendment No. 31, in page 12, line 3, at end insert
'in the case of such of the programmes included in a licensed service as are in the opinion of the Authority comparable to ITV or to the programmes included in a local sound broadcasting service and'.

Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 32 and 33.

Mr. Brinton: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for the previous amendments and also for Government amendment No. 33. When my eyes lit on amendment No. 33 I wondered whether I should withdraw my amendment No. 31. On consideration I decided to pursue it for a few seconds because it seemed that the phrase "licensed diffusion service" may be misinterpreted. Where the programme material on cable is like the programme material on ITV, the standards of advertising, especially in regard to timetabling, should be similar.
My amendment seeks to clarify that issue by using the word "programmes". The word "programmes" divorces the material entirely from what might happen on cable channel or channels. A channel or diffusion service may sometimes produce programmes like those on ITV and at other times do interactive or other activities, which are not similar. I put my amendment tentatively to my right hon. Friend while expressing my appreciation of the Government's amendment.
A further advantage of the amendment is that it allows the Cable Authority to decide unencumbered but having presumably consulted the IBA.

Mr. Gerrard Neale: First, I apologise to my hon. Friend the Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale (Mr. Lang), who no doubt hoped that I would keep my seat. The hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) is not present, but I shall declare an interest as a director of Southend Rentals and advise that the Telecommunications Engineering Manufacturers Association, to his great disappointment, has taken no interest in the Bill, nor sought my advice about it. That may say something about my ability to advise.
Bearing in mind the fact that I raised this point in Committee, it is worth noting that my right hon. Friend has moved a considerable way to accommodate the criticisms of the clause. There is now a far clearer recognition in the wording—I am sure he intended it previously—of the narrowcasting element of cable and of the particular problems relating to the share of advertising time on these programmes, which was noted on Report and subsequently in various ministerial comments. As the amendment will improve the clause, I support it.

Mr. Hurd: My hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham (Mr. Brinton) and I are trying to do the same thing. We are seeking to draft an amendment which will bring the Bill more clearly into line with the policy outlined in the White Paper. We discussed this at length in Committee.
I have considered my hon. Friend's amendment carefully. The difficulty about using the word "programmes" is that it could have a narrow, restrictive effect. Almost any individual programme of the type that appears on ITV may be said to be comparable. For example, a cable operator in Birmingham may offer a cable channel consisting only of Asian films. Under our policy that would constitute a specialised channel and the advertising on it would be unlimited, as my hon. Friend would want. Under his amendment the IBA rules may apply on the ground that Asian language films are occasionally featured on ITV and therefore are comparable.
We have had difficulty drafting the amendment, as I admitted in Committee. We have now found words which bring the statutory language as close as possible to the formulation in the White Paper. I hope that my hon. Friend and the House will accept it. The phrase
so much of a licensed diffusion service
is as near as possible in statutory language to the concept of the cable channel.
One point that we have made clear—the need for this was emphasised in Committee* is that whereas the Cable Authority should consult the IBA in deciding those points, the decision should be that of the authority alone, not a joint decision with the IBA.

Mr. Denis Howell: This matter exercised the Committee for a long time. The Minister has met our points as reasonably as we could expect, and I express my appreciation for that.

Mr. Brinton: I, too, appreciate my right hon. Friend's efforts to get over this difficult point, and I am sure that we are at one in what we intend. This probing amendment


was useful in that it enabled us to ask my right hon. Friend to declare his purpose that like will be treated as like, but that unlike will not be treated. in the same way. He has done that, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendments made: No. 32, in page 12, line 4, leave out from beginnining to 'the' in line 6.

No. 33, in page 12 leave out lines 9 to 17 and insert—
'(a) in the case of so much of a licensed diffusion service as appears to the Authority, after consultation with the

IBA, calculated to appeal to tastes and interests which are generally catered for by ITV, the maximum amount of time which could be so given if that service were ITV; and
(b) in the cade of so much of a licensed diffusion service as appears to the to the Authority, ater consultation with the IBA, calculated to appeal to tastes and interests which are generally catered for by local sound broadcasting services, the maximum amount of time which could be so given if that service were a local sound broadcasting service.'.

No. 34, in page 12, line 28, leave out 'Part' and insert `Ace .—[Mr. Hurd.]

Clause 13

INCLUSION OF CERTAIN BROADCASTS

Mr. Hurd: I beg to move amendment No. 35, in page 13, line 26, leave out from 'schedules' to 'schedules' in line 28 and insert
`then, so far as relating to that television broadcasting service, the duty in subsection (1) above shall be subject to the limitation in whichever of subsections (2A) and (2B) below is applicable.
(2A) Where the programmes contained in one of the programme schedules are broadcast for reception in a greater part of the area than the programmes contained in the other schedule or any of the other schedules, the said duty so far as so relating shall extend only to the programmes contained in the first-mentioned schedule.
(2B) Where subsection (2A) above does not apply, the said duty so far as so relating shall extend only to the programmes contained in such one of the programme'.

Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 36, 37, 40, 41 and 52 to 59.

Mr. Hurd: This group of amendments appears to be rather a mouthful, but I hope that it will not prove to be so. The group adjusts in some detail the workings of the must carry rule under the clause and its interactions with the provisions of the Copyright Act 1956, as amended by clause 23. The first amendment is designed to deal with a problem that was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Neale) in Committee, although his amendment related to a slightly different point. At present clause 13 assumes that the must carry rule can operate in all cases because cable systems will be entirely within the intended area of reception of at least one programme company, although it may be served by a second or even a third company.
Usually that will be true, but we cannot be certain where cable systems will be installed. It is possible, despite the large overlaps between many transmitter coverage areas, that some systems could be partly in the exclusive area of Central Television, partly in an overlap area between Central and Anglia Television, and partly in the exclusive Anglia area. We are trying to ensure that, in such an exceptional case, the must carry arrangements will still work.
The next four amendments are consequent on new clause 12, which we have aleady discussed. The amendments to clause 23 are consequential to the amendments to clause 13. They ensure that a cable operator is never put in a position where he is required both to relay a broadcast service and to enter into copyright negotiations with the broadcaster or other rights owners. The amendments provide the broadcasters with copyright protection for DBS and subscription teletext services against the unauthorised cable relay of those services where the must carry rule does not apply.
The amendments ensure that in all cases rights owners whose works are used in broadcast programmes can secure remuneration in respect of the total audience, including any additional cable viewers outside the normal service area but who receive the programmes under the must carry rule. Although the amendments are complex, they make useful clarifications to the Bill and I ask the House to support them.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments made: No. 36, in page 13, line 29, after `service', insert 'or additional teletext service'.

No. 37, in page 13, line 34, leave out `DBS programme' and insert 'programme or teletext'.

No.40, in page 14, leave out lines 2 and 3 and insert—
additional teletext service" in relation to a broadcasting authority, means a teletext service (other than a DBS service) which is additional to those already provided by that authority;'.

No. 41, in page 14, line 6, at end insert—
programme" includes teletext transmission.'. — Mr. Hurd.]

Clause 14

RESTRICTION ON INCLUSION OF CERTAIN EVENTS

Mr. Freud: I beg to move amendment No. 42, in page 14, line 34, leave out from 'which' to end of line 3 on page 15 and insert
`is specified in Schedule (protected events)'.

Mr. Speaker: With this we may discuss amendment No. 149, new schedule—Protected Events—

Association Football

The F.A. Cup Final

The Milk Cup Final

International Matches

Rugby Union Football

International Matches

Cricket

Test Matches

The National Westminster Bank Final

Horse Racing

The Grand National

The Derby

In addition to the above, the Secretary of State may add events to this list by order. '.

Mr. Freud: Some Opposition Members are concerned that it must not become too easy at any time for a cable company to secure for itself an event which the public have a right to see. Subsection (3) states that a
'listed event' means a sporting or other event … which is for the time being included in a list maintained by the Secretary of State for the purposes of this section and published by him in such a manner as he considers appropriate".
In the best of all worlds there would be open government, and such a list would be published for all to see and would be discussed from time to time. The new schedule includes sporting events such as the FA Cup Final, Test Matches, international matches, great races and, presumably, Wimbledon, the Boat race and state occasions.
The clause states that a
'protected event' means a sporting or other event which, in the opinion of the Authority, is one of a series of similar events".
I should like an assurance from the Minister that there will be no occasion when a national event will be allowed to be bought by a sectional interest.
The Coronation would not be an event within a series, nor would the death of a Prime Minister or a royal wedding such as might occur if Prince Andrew gets married. Although that might be thought to be one of a series, I am sure that it would be no such thing.

Mr. Hurd: I think I understand what the hon. Gentleman is after. He clearly understands the clause, but unwittingly he is introducing a confusion into the mind of the lay reader about what the clause tries to do. It contains provisions about listed and protected events. The hon. Gentleman is creating a possible confusion by providing a first list of protected events, whereas I think he is seeking


to give guidance to my right hon. and learned Friend about what should be on the list of listed events. I congratulate him on a helpful try.
If the hon. Gentleman looks at subsection (3), he will see the definition of a listed event. My right hon. And learned Friend will have to consult all the interested parties about what should be on the list. He already has the advantage of the hon. Gentleman's view. I appreciate that the list leaves out Wimbledon, but this is the sort of thing that ought to be discussed. We have the hon. Gentleman's suggestions, and we shall now need the suggestions of others. My right hon. and learned Friend will then be able to draw up his list.

Mr. Denis Howell: While I do not exactly agree with the amendment of the hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, North-East (Mr. Freud), I support what he is trying to achieve, which is to ensure that a cable company operating in one part of the country cannot buy up, particularly with the help of a sponsor, an attractive national sporting occasion and show it exclusively on its own channel. If that is what the hon. Gentleman is concerned about, I fully support him. It would be wrong if that were to happen.
I take comfort from what the Minister has just said about it being unlikely that that would be allowed to happen because of the negotiations involved.
I also noticed that Wimbledon was excluded from the list. That is an odd omission by the hon. Gentleman, in view of the exciting two weeks which we have all just enjoyed.
I notice that the hon. Gentleman included in his schedule a reference to
The National Westminster Bank Final".
I remind him that only a year ago that was known as the Gillette Cup Final. The sponsors move in and out of these great events. Although we hope that the National Westminster Bank will support this 60-over competition into infinity, the chances are that it will not. Therefore, it would be quite odd to include a reference of that sort in an Act of Parliament.
The hon. Gentleman has done a great service to the House in raising this matter and for drawing attention to the dangers if what he fears were allowed to happen. However, the Opposition take comfort from the Minister's statement that it will not happen without general consultation and the agreement of all the authorities concerned.

Mr. Freud: In the best of all worlds, of course, the schedule would be published and we could discuss it. If the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell) reads on, he will see that it says:
In addition to the above, the Secretary of State may add events to this list by order.
Mine was simply a specimen list and, of course, the Boat Race and the Olympic games would be included.
I, too, am reassured by the Minister's statement. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Brinton: I beg to move amendment No. 43, in page 14, line 42, after 'services', insert
'on conditions which in the opinion of the Authority adversely affect the financial terms on which a broadcasting authority could acquire rights to those events'.
The amendment seeks to clarify a matter that we debated in Committee about the prohibition from pay-per-view. In my amendment it comes into force only when it

is the excessive financial terms which preclude the broadcasting authorities from covering an event and not because they have ceased to carry that event, anyway, and pay-per-view has negotiated the rights on straightforward commercial terms. The amendment seeks free competition, provided that the protected event has been dropped by the broadcasting organisations.
As I understand the Bill as amended, it defines a protected event as one the whole or part of which it is the practice of the BBC and the IBA to cover and which they would still want to cover but for the fact, if they could not, that cable had acquired rights over the event. Am I right in thinking that these restrictions would apply to any new events or even one-off events?
From the point of view of cable, pay-per-view is not prohibited from part or all of an event where the broadcasters are also able to maintain their own coverage. I think of Wimbledon, for example, and wonder whether, if that became a protected event and was listed, cable could get a look in. I wonder, too, whether it is correct that so long as broadcasters are able to secure the coverage of a protected event, cable can screen part of it.
I tabled the amendment to clarify matters. I understood my right hon. Friend to say in Committee that only when the financial terms of a deal with a broadcasting authority were such as to prevent the broadcasters from taking it should the protected event be invoked. If it had been dropped by the broadcasters, it should be open to free market negotiation. That is the clarification that I seek.

Mr. John Hannam: I take up the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham (Mr. Brinton) and refer specifically to the Wimbledon tournament, which is still fresh in our minds.
There is a degree of confusion about the effect of this legislation upon a sporting event such as the Wimbledon tournament. It does not consist of a single game of rugby or football, or even a race. There is a fortnight of several hundred different events taking place on a range of different courts. Each one may be of some attraction to a different viewing public. For example, on court 13 on the Wednesday of the first week, the Scottish champion could be playing against some well-known player. That will not necessarily be regarded as an event which the national media would wish to included in their broadcasts under the terms of their negotiated contract, but it would be of great interest to, perhaps, Scottish cable, to show to viewers in Glasgow or Edinburgh.
10.45 pm
Am I right in thinking that, Wimbledon being one of the possible listed events, whereas a contract may be struck between the All England Lawn Tennis and Croquet Club and, say, the BBC or ITV for the fortnight's proceedings, would it be possible for cable companies to negotiate separately for a varied number of the other rather interesting matches taking place on the outside courts?

Mr. Freud: By the same thought process, would the hon. Gentleman expect cable companies to be able to buy the dressing room at Wembley during a cup final?

Mr. Hannam: If the hon. Gentleman considers that to be a particular attraction to some other regional cable companies, obviously they might wish to tender for it. I doubt whether that would be a negotiable property, but I suppose that it is conceivable.
My point, and it is a serious point, is that a football match is a single event for which a contract can be negotiated but Wimbledon is comprised of hundreds of individual matches, all with a different appeal on different courts, many of which will be of no interest whatever to the contractor—the BBC or ITV. Therefore, it seems perfectly feasible that the All England club having secured a contract with the BBC should, with the BBC's agreement, be able to offer subcontracts for those courts to regional cable companies. Will that be possible under this legislation?
Wimbledon can negotiate with any cable company outside Britain as of now. It can negotiate to sell for amounts far greater than that which it receives from the BBC the right to show matches, as we saw with the final of the men's singles match where a fantastic number of countries received the transmission. Will the Minister clarify that point?
There is also confusion surrounding the contract. At present the BBC has an unwritten and unpublicised agreement with ITV. The BBC can negotiate a contract with the All England club and ITV can have access to certain pick of the day matches for the 10 o'clock news. That results in a low contract price being offered to the All England club. The figure is in the low hundreds of thousands rather than the possible million or so which that tremendous sporting event should command in real market terms. If one takes into account the fact that the profits made from the tournament are ploughed back into British tennis through the Lawn Tennis Association and other bodies, it is vital that we ensure that a proper market price is paid by the broadcasting authority which negotiates the contract. At the moment that is not so.
If, in future, cable becomes well enough established for it to offer a price for the contract of Wimbledon, will it be made apparent by my hon. Friend the Minister that that price will determine the eventual contract with the BBC or the ITV?
At the moment, there is an artificial situation, because of the power in the 1981 Act, which is referred to in the other place as the whip behind the door, to allow regulations to be made, whereby the national broadcasting media can secure the coverage of an event. This is holding down the true market value of the contract, and it is important for the interests of tennis as a whole, the bringing on of young players and the helping of the clubs, that the main source of revenue should be established through a proper price being paid for this contract.

Mr. Denis Howell: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman is correct. To start with, Wimbledon is one of those events that both the BBC and the IBA can televise if they so wish. However, the IBA has opted out and left the BBC to do the televising. That is due not to an Act of Parliament but to a decision of ITV. The same thing is happening with the Olympic coverage. It is available to the IBA, which has chosen, for reasons that we understand, although we may disagree with them, not to be in competition with the BBC.
The All-England Lawn Tennis and Croquet Club and the BBC are two free partners negotiating a price. All sports bodies negotiate their own prices. I told the Football League long ago that I thought that the price that it got was far too low, but it has the remedy in its own hands. It can

either sell the product that it produces or not. In the case of Wimbledon, there is a complication, because much of the negotiation is done by the International Management Group and other firms, certainly for overseas contracts. The price for that is probably higher than that which the BBC pays.
Cable television can come in and negotiate when the main contract is negotiated, and can compete against the BBC, the IBA, or anybody else. We discussed this at length in Committee, but agreed that that was the point at which cable television has the right to put in a rival bid to that of the BBC. However, once the BBC has the contract, it wants the right to show any match from any court that turns out to be interesting on any day.

Mr. Hannam: The right hon. Gentleman has raised the very confusions that exist in the minds of myself and the All England tennis club, and that is why I raised them tonight. I hope that my right hon. Friend will be able to clarify the position, so that we can believe that a market price is being established. I assure the right hon. Gentleman that that is not the case at the moment.

Mr. Hurd: If my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr. Hannam) studies, as perhaps he has, the debates in Committee, he will see that both sides of the Committee were anxious that sporting organisations should benefit, and should not be at a disadvantage, from the Bill. We were under pressure, but the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell) and I were agreed that it is important not to prejudice the ability of sporting organisations to make the best of what they had to offer. Too many restrictions on that should not be imposed.
If Wimbledon was an event listed by the Bill, I draw my hon. Friend's attention to clause 14(1), which covers such events. It says:
The Authority shall do all that they can to secure that no licensed service provided by any person includes a programme which consists of or includes the whole or any part of a listed event, unless the Authority are satisfied that both broadcasting authorities have been given an opportunity to acquire broadcasting rights in respect of that event on terms comparable to those on which that person"—
in this case, the cable company—
acquired the right to include it in that service.
There is a protection for the sporting organisation, in this case the All-England Lawn Tennis and Croquet Club.
We have ensured that broadcasters must have access to listed events on terms comparable to those available to cable companies should they wish to cover them. The protected category merely imposes a restriction on a particular form of pay-per-view which could constitute unfair competition.

Mr. Neale: The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell) said that there was a fear, certainly in football, that if cable were allowed to compete or, more particularly, to come in at the same time, that could reduce the overall amount available to a sport.
My hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr. Hannam) has mentioned a case in which an undervalue was being paid, because a deal was done between the two major broadcasting operations, with one opting out—on the basis that it could show BBC coverage on news bulletins —leaving the BBC free to make a lower offer.
The BBC and a cable authority could both do a deal. They would have different audiences and the sporting organisation would get more. That would be perfectly


proper. It seems from what my right hon. Friend the Minister has said that if the BBC offers a price comparable to what the cable companies would pay, those companies would be excluded. Will my right hon. Friend clarify that point?

Mr. Hurd: Only in terms of clause 14(1). We are talking only of the relatively small number of listed events. Before authorising the provision of a cable service, the Cable Authority must be satisfied that the broadcasting authorities have been given the opportunity to obtain broadcasting rights for that event on terms comparable to those that a cable operator would pay. There is no question of the provision driving down the price. Even with listed events, the sporting organisations will not find that the provisions work in a way that is prejudicial to their natural efforts to get the best price for their wares. The Bill has been drafted with that point in mind.
I can tell my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham (Mr. Brinton) that the restrictions on protected events cannot apply to new events. We clarified that with an amendment in Committee. The event has to be one of a series that it was the practice of the broadcasting authority to show before the commencement of the Act.
I should make a final attempt to clarify clause 14, which I found to be the most complicated clause in the Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham is concerned about the circumstances in which a broadcasting authority loses interest in an event and the Cable Authority has to decide on the consequences.
If a broadcasting authority loses interest in an event solely for programming reasons, the Cable Authority would have to decide, under clause 14(3) whether it would otherwise
still be the practice of the authority to broadcast".
The Cable Authority might well conclude that it would not be, and it would then allow cable to offer the event on pay-per-view. If the broadcaster drops out for purely financial reasons, the Cable Authority will presumably maintain the protection and prohibit pay-per-view. The difficulty arises when the reasons for the broadcaster dropping out are mixed — partly programming and partly financial. The authority has then to decide which reason is predominant and come to a view on pay-per-view.
11 pm
The Bill as drafted allows the authority to reach its conclusion in a broad-brush commonsense way. The authority will have to ask itself whether the acquisition of the rights affected the broadcaster's practice, or whether he would have dropped out anyway. My hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham tries to narrow the criterion, in order to clarify it. The result might be more restrictive than he intends. If the broadcaster could satisfy the authority that financial reasons played even a small part in his decision not to cover the event, the authority would be obliged to maintain the pay-per-view prohibition—or it might read the Bill in that way—even though, in truth, the main motive for the broadcaster's decision had been a programming one and therefore the protection against pay-per-view would not be sensible. In trying to clarify the situation, my hon. Friend has narrowed the definition. The effect produced by his amendment might be the reverse of what he has in mind.
Although the position is complicated, the practical implications of clause 14 are sensible and, on this point,

it provides the authority with greater flexibility to move in what my hon. Friend would regard as the right direction than would be provided under his amendment.

Mr. Brinton: I have listened to my right hon. Friend's comments with great attention, and have been comforted by some of them. However, I must again make plain my anxiety that we are not allowing totally free and fair competition after the protected event has been taken out of the issue. That is what concerns my hon. Friends and myself in considering what may be, as my right hon. Friend says, the most complicated clause in the Bill.
There are doubts—

Mr. Richard Tracey: They are shared by other Conservative Members.

Mr. Brinton: My amendment may be defective, but I hope that there is the ultimate chance that my right hon. Friend will reconsider the matter. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 14 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 16

POWER TO REQUIRE VISUAL AND SOUND RECORDS ETC.

Amendment made: No. 44, in page 16, line 33, leave out from beginning to 'Act' in line 34 and insert:
`Expressions used in this section which are also used in the 1956 Act have the same meanings as in that'.—[Mr. Hurd.]

Clause 20

ACCOUNTS AND AUDIT

Mr. Hurd: I beg to move amendment No. 47, in page 18, line 15, leave out
`and a person shall not be qualified to be so appointed' and insert—
'(2A) A person shall not be qualified to be appointed as an auditor in pursuance of subsection (2) above'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Paul Dean): With this it will be convenient to take Government amendments Nos. 48, 175 and 179.

Mr. Hurd: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Smith) for drawing attention to a deficiency, which the amendment corrects.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment made: No. 48, in page 18, line 26, at end insert
`but a Scottish firm may be so appointed if each of the partners in the firm is qualified to be so appointed'.—[Mr. Hurd.]

Clause 22

COPYRIGHT IN CABLE PROGRAMMES

Amendment made: No. 49, in page 21, line 38, leave out from 'of' to 'to' in line 43 and insert
`the said Act of 1984 or a service provided outside the United Kingdom which would be such a service if subsection (7) o f section 2 of that Act and references in subsection (1) of that section'.—[Mr. Hurd.]

Mr. Hurd: I beg to move amendment No. 50, in page 21, line 46, at end insert'—
'(12) The foregoing provisions of this section shall have effect as if references in those provisions and in section 12(9) of


this Act to sounds included references to signals serving for the impartation of matter otherwise than in the form of sounds or visual images.'

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments.

No. 161, in schedule 5, page 51, line 38, leave out `section 14(10)' and insert 'subsection (10) of section 14'.

No. 162, in page 52, line 3, at end insert—
'(8A) After that subsection there shall be inserted the following subsection—
(11) The foregoing provisions of this section shall have effect as if references in those provisions and in section 12(9) of this Act to sounds included references to signals serving for the impartation of matter otherwise than in the form of sounds or visual images.".'.

Mr. Hurd: These amendments fulfil an undertaking given in another place in response to points made by Lord Howard of Henderskelfe. They are designed to remedy a deficiency in the copyright protection available for computer software or data when this is either broadcast or included in cable programme services.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 23

OTHER AMENDMENTS OF 1956 ACT

Amendments made:

No. 51, in page 22, leave out lines 1 to 3.

No. 52, in page 22, line 9, leave out
`subsections — "(8A) Subject to subsection (8B) below' and insert `subsection—"(8A)'.

No. 53, in page 22, line 11, leave out
`made for reception in any area'.

No. 54, in page 22, leave out lines 15 to 22 and insert—
'(a) if the programme is so included in pursuance of a requirement imposed under subsection (1) of section 13 of the Cable and Broadcasting Act 1984; or
(b) where the broadcast is made otherwise than in a DBS service (as defined in subsection (4) of that section) or an additional teletext service (as so defined), if and to the extent that it is made for reception in the area in which the cable programme service is provided.

Exercise of jurisdiction of tribunal in relation to inclusion of broadcasts in cable programmes

(3A) After section 27A of that Act there shall be inserted the following section—

27B.—(1) On a reference to the tribunal under this Part of this Act relating to licences to broadcast works or sound recordings for reception in any area, the tribunal shall exercise its powers under this Part of this Act so as to secure that the charges payable for the licences adequately reflect the extent to which the works or recordings will be included in pursuance of requirements imposed under section 13(1) of the Cable and Broadcasting Act 1984, in cable programme services provided in areas parts of which fall outside that area.

(2) The preceding subsection shall have effect, with the necessary modifications, in relation to applications under this Part of this Act as it has effect in relation to references thereunder." '.

No. 55, in page 22, line 26, leave out 'subsection' and insert 'subsections'.

No. 56, in page 22, line 28, leave out 'for reception in any area'.

No. 57, in page 22, line 29, after second 'broadcast', insert
`then, subject to subsection (3A) below,'.

No. 58, in page 22, line 32, leave out 'provided in that area'.

No. 59, in page 22, line 40, at end insert—
'(3A) Subsection (3) above applies only—


(a)if the programme is included in the service in pursuance of a requirement imposed under section 13(1) of the Cable and Broadcasting Act 1984; or
(b) if and to the extent that the broadcast is made for reception in the area in which the service is provided.".'.

No. 60, in page 22, line 41, leave out from beginning to end of line 28 on page 23.—[Mr. Hurd.]

Clause 25

OBSCENE PROGRAMMES IN SCOTLAND

Mr. Hurd: I beg to move amendment No. 65, in page 25, leave out lines 10–14.
This is another technical amendment to remove a definition that is now redundant.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 27

AMENDMENT OF LAW OF DEFAMATION

Mr. Hurd: I beg to move amendment No. 66, in page 27, line 21, leave out second 'the'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Government amendments Nos. 68, 69, 186, 187 and 189.

Mr. Hurd: These are technical amendments to the Bill's provisions on defamation.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments made:

No. 68, in page 27, line 30, leave out 'under this Part'.

No. 69, in page 27, line 34, leave out 'distribution or presentation' and insert 'inclusion'

Clause 28

COMPLAINTS OF UNJUST OR UNFAIR TREATMENT ETC.

Mr. Austin Mitchell: I beg to move amendment No. 70, in page 28, line 1, at beginning insert
`Unless a right of reply has been offered and used within two weeks of the transmission of an item which gives rise to complaint by an individual, then'.
This is an important matter. The Opposition are attached to the right of reply and would like to see it provided by newspapers and off-air television services. It is a basic human right for someone who is maligned, misrepresented or attacked in the media to have quick access to a right of reply to put over his point of view or a corrective argument. That is especially important in cable television.
The advent of the cable network and the new structure provided for in the Bill gives us an opportunity to introduce a quick right of reply. It is relevant because the essence of cable is minority audiences and narrowcasting. It is a different, much more flexible and varied structure than the oligopoly of mass off-air channels and therefore a quicker and more immediate response is desirable.
The Broadcasting Complaints Commission does a good job. The Opposition do not criticise it, but it is a slow and elaborate procedure that is over-elaborate for cable television for which something quicker and simpler is appropriate. We therefore commend to the cable companies the precedent that is offered by more than 30 newspapers in the United States which have set up their


own ombudsman to adjudicate on complaints against those papers and to give the right of reply where he thinks it relevant. The Washington Post pioneered the development. If the cable companies can be persuaded, as they would be by amendment No. 70, to offer the right of reply when they agree that a person has been misrepresented or maligned, that would short-circuit the elaborate procedure of the Broadcasting Complaints Commission.
We offer amendment No. 70 because it would be quick, simple and an important precedent. We need to strengthen the individual against the media organisations.

Mr. Hurd: The hon. Gentleman is devoted to the right of reply and here it is, popping up again. It would be odd to add it to the Bill when no such right exists in the broadcast channels. People have only one television set in a room and they would be pretty baffled if the procedures for complaint differed according to the origin of the programme coming out of the set.
The Committee decided that, like broadcasting complaints, cable complaints should be made to the Broadcasting Complaints Commission. I am glad that the hon. Gentleman paid some tribute to its work. I do not think that it would be sensible to add yet another layer of procedures for dealing with complaints on cable.

Mr. Austin Mitchell: It is appropriate to exercise my right of reply. I am disappointed by the Minister's reply. The right of reply will be established and it will be set out in legislative form for the mass media. The amendment gives the Minister the opportunity to take an important step forward and to pioneer the right of reply in an area which is immediately relevant. The commission which deals with complaints about broadcasting is a slow-moving and cumbersome procedure for something as quick, flexible and immediate as cable television.
We do not intend to press the amendment to a Division. The loss is the Minister's because he could have established himself as an important pioneer instead of the legislative pressure cooker that is emerging as our debates on the Bill proceed. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendments made: No. 71, in page 28, line 33, leave out 'diffusion service' and insert
'service to which this section applies which is'.

No. 72, in page 28, line 39, leave out 'diffusion service' and insert
'service to which this section applies'.

No. 73, in page 28, line 41, leave out 'the diffusion' and insert 'that'.

No. 74, in page 28, line 43, at end insert
'(2) This section applies to any cable programme service and any service which would be such a service if subsection (7) of section 2 above were omitted'.—[Mr. Hurd.]

Clause 31

ENTRY AND SEARCH OF PREMISES

Mr. Hurd: I beg to move amendment No. 76, in page 29, line 6, after 'committed', insert
'on any premises specified in the information'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Government amendment No. 77.

Mr. Hurd: The Opposition expressed concern in Committee about the powers of entry and search. I

considered the issue carefully and I have tried to meet their concern by tightening up the provisions. I hope that the Opposition are satisfied.

Mr. Corbett: We are grateful to the Minister for the way in which he has tried to meet the concern that we expressed in Committee.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment made: No. 77, in page 29, line 8, leave out
'any premises specified in the information'
and insert
'those premises'.—[Mr. Hurd.]

Mr. Corbett: I beg to move amendment No. 78, in page 29, line 8, at end insert
'and that it is not excluded material or special procedure material as defined in section 9 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984'.
Having recently congratulated the Minister on the way in which he tried to meet the Opposition's concern in Committee, I must now say that we regret that he did not go far enough. We are talking about what appears to be a never-ending legion of persons who can force their way into our homes. That may be a rather dramatic remark, but there is great concern among many about those who can get warrants or obtain powers to permit them to enter our homes irrespective of whether we are on the premises.
The subject of the amendment is someone who is suspected of being a pirate broadcaster, to use the well-known phrase. The Minister responded to a letter from the Association of Cinematograph, Television and Allied Technicians on 17 May, and when dealing with the clause he wrote that
it confers no powers of seizure or apparatus etc. and is valid only for one month.
Does "etc." include documents? A warrant will be issued by a magistrate if he is satisfied, after hearing evidence on oath, that there are reasonable grounds for suspecting that an offence under clause 3 has been or is being committed. That means that the premises are being or have been used for the purpose of a pirate broadcast. It is unclear from the right hon. Gentleman's letter to the ACTT whether, following that search, the police officer can remove items. The Minister's letter tells us that the clause
confers no powers of seizure of apparatus".
In other words, the officer cannot get hold of the transmitter which is being used in an illegal manner, put it in his knapsack and run it down the road to the nick.
My query is directed to "etc." There is a serious issue that underlies the amendment and there is some irony in the Opposition praying in aid the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill. The Minister, myself and many other hon. Members had the pleasure—I think that is the word—of serving on the Committees that considered both the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill and this Bill.
11.15 pm
In the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill there is what is referred to as excluded material and special procedure material. To encourage the right hon. Gentleman to meet our point, we thought that it could be suitably encapsulated if we took those words from the Polic and Criminal Evidence Bill to try to restrict the powers of entry and search of premises in relation to pirate broadcasting under the terms of the Cable and Broadcasting Bill.
It would, for example, be wrong that the police should be able to obtain a warrant for the search of premises, say, of an accountant or a doctor for evidence relating to an


offence under the Cable and Broadcasting Bill, when that power did not exist under the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill in regard to the definitions of excluded material and special procedure material. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will be able to reassure us on that point.

Mr. Hurd: I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman, after all his experience, should have fallen into line with the concepts of special procedure material and excluded material. That is very gratifying. However, I do not think that they are really appropriate here.
The word "etc." in my letter does include documents. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman realises that we are not talking here about seizure; there is no power of seizure in the clause. We are talking about a power to search and obtain evidence by observation rather than by taking away apparatus or documents. We are not talking here about police powers. If the police were by chance to be involved in the process, the provisions of the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill, when enacted, would apply. On the whole, we are talking here of the execution of warrants by the employees of the authority. I shall be moving an amendment on that point shortly. I think it would be a mistake to seek to apply the special statutory provisions about police powers to all those who may have a power of search.
We are requiring the consent of a justice of the peace to a search through the warrant procedure and, before any prosecution can be brought, obviously the Director of Public Prosecutions must give his consent. We are not talking about a power which can be exercised arbitrarily, and I hope that cable piracy will be an infrequent occurrence. If the police were ever involved, the provisions of the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill would apply. With that explanation, I hope that the hon. Member will not press the amendment.

Mr. Austin Mitchell: The question was really whether, under this legislation, greater powers are conferred on the police in regard to right of search than are conferred in respect of the commercial television contractors.

Mr. Hurd: I do not know. I do not have the Broadcasting Acts at hand and I shall have to let the hon. Member know the answer to that question.

Mr. Corbett: In view of what the right hon. Gentleman has said, and tempted as I was to call upon the legions of my right hon. and hon. Friends who are hovering about, ready to go into the Lobbies, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment made: No. 79, in page 29, line 10, leave out 'Secretary of State' and insert 'Authority'.—[Mr. Hurd.]

Mr. Hurd: I beg to move amendment No. 80, in page 29, line 19, leave out from first 'or to `shall' in line 22 and insert
`any legal proceedngs or of a report of any such proceedings, any information obtained by means of an exercise of powers conferred by this section'.
The amendment is in response to a point made by the hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. Stott) in Committee. I hope he will feel that I have done my best to recognise it.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 32

SCRIPTS AS EVIDENCE

Mr. Hurd: I beg to move amendment No. 81, in page 29, line 37, leave out
`an offence under section 24 or 26 above'
and insert 'a relevant offence'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Government amendments Nos. 82, 84, 86, 87 and 90.

Mr. Hurd: These are technical amendments to ensure that similar enforcement provisions in relation to cable offences of obscenity and incitement to racial hatred apply in Scotland as in the rest of the United Kingdom.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments made:

No. 52, in page 30, line 7, after `below' insert—
'"relevant offence" means an offence under section 26 above or—

(a) in relation to England and Wales and Northern Ireland, an offence under section 24 above; or
(b) in relation to Scotland, an offence under section 51 of the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982;'.—[Mr. Hurd.]

Clause 33

POWER TO MAKE COPIES OF SCRIPTS AND RECORDS

Amendments made:

No. 84, in page 30, line 14, leave out
'an offence under section 24 or 26 above'
and insert 'a relevant offence'.

No. 86, in page 30, line 17, leave out
`an offence under the said section'
and insert 'a relevant offence'.

No. 87, in page 30, line 23, leave out 'police officer' and insert 'person'

No. 90, in page 31, line 5, at end insert—
'(6) In the application of this section to Scotland, for the reference to a police officer of or above the rank of superintendent having reasonable grounds there shall be substituted a reference to the procurator fiscal being satisfied, on receiving a report from a police officer, that there are reasonable grounds. '.—[Mr. Hurd.]

Clause 34

AVAILABILITY OF VISUAL AND SOUND RECORDS

Amendment made: No. 91, in page 31, line 19, leave out from beginning to `Act' in line 20 and insert
`Expressions used in this section which are also used in the 1956 Act have the same meanings as in that' .—[Mr. Hurd.]

Clause 35

OFFENCES BY BODIES CORPORATE

Amendment made:

No. 92, in page 31, line 21, leave out Clause 35.—[Mr. Hurd.]

Clause 36

INTERPRETATION OF PART I

Amendments made:

No. 93, in page 31, line 33, leave out subsection (1).

No. 94, in page 31, line 36, leave out from 'Part' to end of line 40.

No. 95, in page 32, leave out lines 1 and 2.

No. 96, in page 32, leave out lines 5 and 6.

No. 97, in page 32, leave out lines 25 and 26.

No. 98, in page 32, leave out lines 29 to 34.—[Mr.Hurd.]

Clause 37

PROVISION OF DBS SERVICES

Amendments made: No. 99, in page 33, line 9, leave out from 'the' to end of line 10 and insert '1981 Act'.

No. 100, in page 33, line 33, at end insert—
'"DBS teletext contractor" means a person whose contract as a teletext contractor gives him the right and duty to provide material for inclusion in teletext transmissions broadcast in a DBS service. '.—[Mr. Hurd.]

Clause 38

CONTRACTS FOR PROGRAMMES

Mr. Gale: I beg to move amendment No. 138, in page 33, line 40, at beginning insert—
'(a) Every contract between the IBA and a DBS programme contractor shall contain all such provisions as the IBA think necessary or expedient to ensure that nothing shall impair the supply of programmes provided by persons who are nationals or residents of countries within the European Economic Community or companies resident within the European Economic Community and otherwise than from persons of any of the following descriptions, namely a TV or DBS programme contractor or a body corporate under the control of a TV or DBS programme contractor.'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments:

No. 121, in clause 43, page 36, line 22, at end
insert—
`(c) contain all such provisions as the Board think necessary or expedient to ensure that a substantial proportion of the programmes provided by the programme provider shall be acquired by the programme provider from persons who are nationals or residents of countries within the European Economic Community or companies resident within the European Economic Community and otherwise than from persons of any of the following descriptions, namely a TV programme contractor or a body corporate under the control of a TV programme contractor or the BBC or a body corporate under the control of the BBC (or any other corporation participating in the programme provider.)'.

Amendment No. 131, in clause 45, page 37, line 33, after '2001', insert
`, provided that, as revised, the contracts between the IBA (the Authority) and the various programme contractors for the provision of television programmes shall contain such terms as are in the opinion of the IBA necessary or expedient to ensure the supply and inclusion of a proper proportion of programmes by companies or persons resident in the United Kingdom other than a television programme contractor and (or) a body corporate under the control of a programme contractor or the BBC or a body corporate under the control of the BBC.'.
Government amendments Nos. 126, 128, 132 and 188.

Mr. Gale: I apologise for the lateness of the hour at which we are discussing these amendments. I am afraid that this will take time, as I must do justice to the subject of the amendments, which was discussed in principle in Committee.
The subject relates to the authority of the IBA beyond its give date and the responsiblity which, if the extension is granted by the House, will be placed on the authority.

In particular, we are concerned with the extension of the genuine independent programme-making market into markets which are closed to it at present.
Amendments Nos. 121 and 138 are complementary to amendment No. 131 and extend the provisions in amendment No. 131 and the safeguards in that amendment for satellite television.
Support for amendment No. 131 comes from most of the Conservative Members who served on the Cable and Broadcasting Bill Committee. In view of the Opposition's statements on quotas of British production, especially those of the hon. Members for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell), for St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham) and for Cambridgeshire, North-East (Mr. Freud), I should like to think that they, too, support these amendments.
I must make it plain that I am not asking for a quota. We are asking that access should be given to the free markets to genuinely independent producers. I shall make it plain in a moment that that falls within the remit of the clause and of the IBA.

Mr. John Golding: If the hon. Gentleman intends to press this to a Division, it is important for him to tell us, so that we know how seriously to take the arguments.

Mr. Gale: The argument is extremely serious. Whether or not I press it to a Division depends upon the answer that I receive from my right hon. Friend.

Mr. Austin Mitchell: Can the hon. Gentleman give us a rough idea?

Mr. Gale: I shall give the hon. Gentleman a rough idea. It might depend on whether he is prepared to support the stand against restrictive practices by the trade unions, such as the one to which both he and I belong.
It has been customary in the debate to declare interests. I have no commercial interest in the Bill. I have an interest as a member of the NUJ and of the ACTT. Until my arrival in the House, I was a producer of television prgrammes and a director.

Mr. Mitchell: I am not quite sure of the hon. Gentleman's point. He began with praise the genuinely independent producer and went on to attack trade unions. What exactly is the hon. Gentleman talking about? What is the catch? If he wants our support, he must tell us what he is doing. Is he providing for the production companies which do not have a full union complement and which do not have an agreement with trade unions? Is that his intention?

Mr. Gale: If the hon. Gentleman allowed me to expand my argument for more than a minute and a half at a time, he would probably find out exactly what he wants to know.
From now on, the IBA should defend independent British production, and Scottish, Welsh and Northern Ireland production as well, in a way that it has not done so far. In the past, the IBA has defended the monopoly interests of the programme contractors. Those of us who have worked in television and have produced and directed programmes are aware of the unholy alliance between the ACTT and the National Association of Theatrical Television and Kine Employees, representing the craft unions, and the Independent Television Companies Association management. Those of us who worked in those industries know the industrial problems have been solved by huge pay settlements and gross manning levels.

Mr. Austin Mitchell: The hon. Gentleman is making allegations, and he made allegations in Committee as well. Will he now care to correct his statement in Committee about Yorkshire Television and its agreement with the trade unions, which was lambasted in a letter to him by the managing director of Yorkshire Television?

Mr. Gale: I was coming to that point. Unfortunately, the hon. Gentleman does not have my response to that letter or the response to that response which I shall quote for him.
We can now have the crocodile tears from the Opposition who, in union terms, have sought to defend arguably the most damaging single element that hits British independent programme production—restrictive practices.
I referred in Committee to a deal done by Yorkshire television. I said:
Yorkshire Television has done a deal with the union there, and given an undertaking not to finance outside production. I gather that the union members there will produce all the material financed by Yorkshire for Yorkshire Television." — [Official Report, Standing Committee D, 21 June 1984; c. 255.]
I said that I would put Mr. Paul Fox's response on the record. He replied in a letter:
this is not so. No undertakings of this sort have been given.
Do I stand corrected? The managing director went on:
As a responsible employer of television production staff, YTV has assured its employees that all Yorkshire Television programmes produced by Yorkshire Television and carrying the Yorkshire symbol are serviced by Yorkshire Television staff.
That undertaking made no reference to the financing of productions. We have established that an undertaking has been given by the management of the company — I should like the House to understand that this is not a vendetta against Yorkshire television — to the unions involved in that company that it will produce all the material carrying the Yorkshire television symbol.
The managing director of Yorkshire television continued:
As a matter of business policy, and unconnected with the undertaking to staff YTV does not wish to provide finance for its competitors: we are not in the business of helping others to succeed at our expense.
Where is the great union between the independent television contractors and the genuinely independent television programme makers? Paul Fox, the managing director of one of the major companies in this country, described them as his "competitors". He said that he is not in the business of helping them to compete. What encouragement can there be in that statement for the genuinely independent programme producer? Paul Fox continued:
Nevertheless, as a member"—
I hope that the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) finds this letter interesting, because it is the one that he wanted to hear—
of the ITV broadcasting system, YTV is genuinely interested in purchasing independent productions — be they British, Commonwealth or American—in a free market at the going market rate".
A "free market" is the market dictated by the Independent Television Companies Association. It is a market that buys independent productions at a fifth or a tenth of production costs.
The hon. Member for Great Grimsby, who knows something about this profession, knows as well as I do that the bought-in programmes are financed not by independent television company money but by independent producers

who may or may not be able to sell their products. There is no money up front because of the undertakings given to the craft unions within the television industry. The staffing levels on the studio floor are far too high and the hon. Member is aware that genuinely independent companies could not afford those gross overmanning levels.
11.30 pm
If the IBA's life is to be extended, I believe that independent producers must be able to compete on equal terms in the kind of market place to which the managing director of Yorkshire television referred. He has a position within the Independent Television Companies Association. My criticism is not directed at Yorkshire Television. The managing director of that company has at least been kind enough to put in writing and allow me to explain to the House the practices that most of the major companies pursue.
The aim of the amendment is to stimulate British independent production. As I have said before, we do not seek to dictate a quota. I do not believe that the amendment will damage the independent contractors' companies' interest in any way.
London Weekend television, TV South, Thames television, Central television and Yorkshire television have a hugh investment in modern technology. Some of it was made recently following the award of new franchises. In the case of TV South that was a brave investment in a new studio complex. Those studios should be used, but they should not be used by too many people. They should be used to make more British, independent programmes. There is no reason why—the independent companies are aware of this—they should not hire their facilities and their investment in technology to genuinely independent producers and their genuinely independent staffs.
With the advent of cable I believe that we have the opportunity to generate British independent production. The major companies have so far failed to assist that generation. The IBA has also failed, and that is why I tabled the amendment.

Mr. Brinton: Channel 4.

Mr. Gale: It has been left, as my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham (Mr. Brinton) says, to Channel 4 to give such stimulus as has been offered, but we both know that that is not enough.

Mr. Bermingham: I have listened with interest to the hon. Member, but does he agree that if the cable vision companies are buying cheap foreign material there will be no incentive for the independent producers to make home-based programmes? The way to ensure that independent producers produce what we all want is to protect their right to supply cable television.

Mr. Gale: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman because he has given me the opportunity to clarify a point. The amendment is related directly to broadcast television. As the hon. Gentleman is aware, I was the first in Committee to hammer home the fact that we are dealing with cable, but this clause deals with the extension of the life of a broadcasting authority, not the Cable Authority. I should be happy to discuss the cable aspects later, as we did in Committee. The clause deals with the extension of the life of the IBA.
I ask my right hon. Friend to accept what I believe are reasoned and reasonable amendments; and to serve notice


on those who wish to restrain growth that the days of restrictive practices are numbered. We are asking not for a fixed quota but for what the managing director of Yorkshire television rightly referred to in his letter—the right to compete in the marketplace on equal terms. I ask my right hon. Friend for his support. I ask him to accept the amendments relating to DBS and to tell the IBA that it should exercise its authority and end restrictive practices within broadcast television.

Mr. Freud: I listened with care and sympathy to the hon. Member for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale), especially when he said that this was not a quota. Amendment No. 131 states:
to ensure the supply and inclusion of a proper proportion of programmes.
If that is not a quota, what is? The hon. Gentleman's Government no longer insist on the quota of handicapped and disabled people who used to have to be employed by industry, but pursue the economics of the market place. Yet the hon. Gentleman demands
the supply and inclusion of a proper proportion
of people who may not have anything worthwhile to sell. That is my only point.

Mr. Mitchell: the hon. Member for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale) should stop foisting on the House his past experience in commercial television, and the vendettas and hatreds he accumulated while working there. The process may be of therapeutic value to him, but it has little relevance to the legislation.
If the hon. Gentleman seeks the support of the Opposition for a series of amendments to strengthen independent producers, he has gone about it in a subtle and carefully calculated fashion by launching a direct onslaught on the Opposition, trade unions and working practices, which have endured for a long time and have been found satisfactory by the companies and the unions in commercial television. I do not understand his strategy, but I offer him the opportunity, if he seriously wants our support, to tell us that it is not merely a union-bashing measure as he presented it. We have 204 Labour Members sitting around in various parts of the House and they are eager to come and vote on the amendments. If he will assure us now that it is not a union-bashing measure the word can go out and he can have their support. I suspect, however, that he will not give us that assurance.
I am aware of the unanimous vote of confidence that the ACTT shop at Thames television gave the hon. Gentleman when he stood at the Northfield by-election, which warned the electors that, from its experience of him, it might be a mistake to vote for him, and warned them of his antagonism towards unions in commercial television.
I have no great enthusiasm for Yorkshire television. I spearheaded with the hon. Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken) a workers' bid for the contract in 1980, and since then I have not been invited to appear on Yorkshire television. I feel in an anomalous position defending an organisation with which I have such a relationship.

Mr. Golding: If I could find my hon. Friend an independent producer in Yorkshire, would he co-operate?

Mr. Mitchell: These days I have a better face for radio than commercial television. As I failed disastrously as a disc jockey and as a television presenter, I doubt whether the market would be large.
The existing staffing arrangements and working relationships with the trade unions in commercial television are of long standing, have endured we and provided effectively for the maintenance of quality and good production, which would not have been available elsewhere. Although there are always niggles about whether to take this production assistant or this second lighting assistant on that overseas trip, the staffing levels are nearly always necessary, and produce better programmes and television. The annoyances are temporary and short-lived. The harmonious industrial climate in commercial television provides good, high-quality production, which is worth maintaining.
Therefore, when the managing director of Yorkshire television tells the hon. Member for Thanet, North that he does not want competitors, that is exactly what it is about. Why should Yorkshire television encourage people to compete with it to provide programmes on its network? Where is the commercial logic in that? It comes not from a desire to maintain union staffing levels or to suppress independent production, but from a desire to remain dominant in the area. It is an obvious capitalist motive.

Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: We have some respect for the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell), but he must not pull our legs at this late hour and try to suggest that all is lovely, and that the only objective of the unions is to preserve the quality of broadcasting. In that context, will he help the House to understand why it took so long for Britain to have electronic news gathering?

Mr. Mitchell: Clearly because the unions wished to negotiate the best deal that they could. That is in their interests and it is an obvious thing to do. The manning levels were considerably reduced from those previously prevailing in the film industry. The unions have accepted logical manning levels. Perhaps the hon. Member for Wealden (Sir G. Johnson Smith) wishes to reduce manning to the level of a Japanese film crew that I saw recently, which consisted of one man carrying the camera, which had a microphone sticking out of it, and asking the questions. Fortunately, it was daylight, because in his back-pack he had a hand basher to illuminate the scene as well.
We are concerned about standards and quality of production. There is a developing scope for independent production on Channel 4, and it is welcome, but this amendment does not secure that. It offers a guaranteed quota to independent producers, provided that they can force down costs by bashing the unions, reducing manning levels to the minimum, and thereby reducing quality to the minimum, irrespective of the quality of what they produce. No sane Opposition would back such an amendment. The hon. Member for Thanet, North has gone over the top such is his peculiar hatred of trade unions in the television industry. On that ground, I offer him no support, but some hostility from the Opposition.

Mr. Golding: I was not persuaded by the speech of the hon. Member for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale). I was even less persuaded of his case when I read the amendment, which requires that a substantial number of programmes must be provided by the people. What if those programmes are no good and are not the sort of programmes that people wish to watch?
I risk losing the support of my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell), who stands for quality in all things. I stand for entertainment. When I switch on the television I do not want to see a "quality" programme; I want to see a programme that amuses or instructs me. I mostly want to see a programme that amuses or delights me. I am interested in programmes made for the viewer. I am the stuff that capitalist programmes are made of; I am the customer. What upsets me is that, as ever, the do-gooders say, "Perhaps the programme companies are making programmes that people want to watch. We are making programmes that we want to show and we will force them upon the IBA and the programme companies." That does not seem to be reasonable. Why, when I switch on my television, should the programmes of the hon. Member for Thanet, North and his intellectual mates be thrust upon me? That is the question of the hour, however late it may be. Why should I as a viewer have to suffer the desire of the hon. Gentleman's friends to do good on this earth?

Mr. Gorst: The short answer to the hon. Gentleman is in order to give employment to him and his mates.

Mr. Golding: As so often, I fail to follow the hon. Gentleman's logic. If the hon. Gentleman is arguing that the hon. Member for Thanet, North is indulging in special pleading, I accept that.
Professionally, I always admire an argument that can bring together high principle and self-interest. That is what the hon. Gentleman seems to be doing. He and his mates want to make money, their reputations and to force their programmes upon us, but we do not necessarily want them.
One thing is certain— if the companies must take these programmes, they will have to pay for them, because the hon. Gentleman and his mates will not give them away for nothing. If the hon. Gentleman sells them, ultimately the consumer will pay through advertising.
The hon. Member for Thanet, North has tried to pull a fast one. He is asking us to accept the amendment moved in the name of freedom, when it should have been moved in the name of elitism and pecuniary self-interest.

Mr. Hurd: My hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale) is anxious to encourage independent production. So am I, so are the Government, and so we have proved. The independent sector is a lively, enjoyable and low-cost part of the industry. It has done well, perhaps largely because of the way in which Channel 4 and the fourth channel in Wales were established by the Government. Naturally, this sector is looking for further openings in the future. My hon. Friend's amendments open up possibilities in three areas.
Amendment No. 131 deals with terrestrial franchises. The obligation which my hon. Friend suggests is not one which the IBA could unilaterally impose on terrestrial contractors during the current terrestrial franchises. The programme balance for ITV is at present a matter for contractual agreement between the IBA and the companies. Given their success so far, we hope that opportunities will appear for independent producers to get a showing on ITV. The ITV companies have indicated to

the Independent Programme Producers Association those areas of ITV programming where independent contributions might well be welcome and successful.
My hon. Friend's amendment proposes a major change in the way in which ITV operates. Such a change would need a good deal of consultation, including consultation with the IBA.
My hon. Friend, with his knowledge of the structure, will agree that the possible consequences for individual companies would vary. Each company has different characteristics. Some of the big ones would perhaps be able to give space in their schedules to independent producers. Some of the smaller ones might not be able to do so without undermining their own production base. It is an idea which would need a good deal of further thought and consultation.
The second opening which my hon. Friend proposes is in the scheme for IBA or independent commercial DBS for which we are providing in clause 37. Here there is no inside track for the ITV companies. There is no suggestion in the Bill and no thought in the Government's mind that when the time comes for the IBA to activate this part of the Bill and provide a purely commercial DBS service, there will be any reason why there should be any advantage conferred on the ITV companies. The independent producers have a strong natural position. I do not think that they have any need for a preferential position, and I do not think that they would ask for one. They would be able to compete at that stage with natural advantages. There they have an equality of opportunity, which is what my hon. Friend desires, and the Bill does nothing to preclude that.
The position of the joint DBS project, which is the third opening which the amendments discuss, is different, as the House discussed on Second Reading and in Committee. The prospective participants in the joint venture expect to purchase programmes from independents. All have said that they attach importance to the provision of British material for DBS programming, and they recognise the impressive contribution which independent producers have made to Channel 4. The BBC, the IBA and ITCA would expect the independent producers to secure a due degree of access to DBS programming provided that they were able to supply satisfactory material at competitive prices. That will be crucial for a venture as high risk as DBS will be. Therefore if my hon. Friend is right about the ability of the independent sector to produce competitive programmes, there will definitely be room for them in the joint project.

Mr. Gale: Does my right hon. Friend accept that at least one of my arguments is that at the moment there is a cartel? ITCA is buying from independent producers but not at the market rate because it has effectively a ring. It can buy in at its own price, and that is in no way the market price. It is that that we wish to prevent happening in satellite television.

Mr. Hurd: I understand that, and that is one reason why we believe that it is necessary to do more than simply rest on the undertakings that I have just described.
We believe that there is a legitimate public interest in monitoring the sources of programmes supplied for the joint project to see how they develop, having in mind the point made by my hon. Friend. That is why we tabled amendment No. 128, which will place the Satellite


Broadcasting Board under a duty to include information in its annual report on this matter. We are even more specific, because the amendment will require the board to include in its annual report an account of the extent to which the joint project programmes have been supplied by persons other than those participating in the consortium. Clause 44 (1B) defines those participating as including holding companies, subsidiaries or associates of the participants. For the purpose of the clause, all other programme suppliers will count as independent producers.
I have been through the three openings which my hon. Friend's amendments describe. I have shown how the first requires further study and consultation, how the second is knocking at an open door because for the purely commercial DBS there is no favoured position for the ITV companies, and how, thirdly, the Government amendment makes it clear that it is not simply a matter of noting assurances which have been given but that there will be a duty on the board to report to the public and to the House on the extent to which independents get a look in in the joint project. Taken together, those steps show a realistic measure of support for the independent sector and constitute a substantial step forward.

Mr. Gale: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Minister for his assurances on DBS and the joint project. Independent producers will find a great deal of comfort in the clarification offered, particularly on the joint project. I take all the points that he has made about Government amendment No. 128. However, I am much less happy with his comments on the future of independent production within the independent programme contractors as they exist at the moment. He was good enough to say that he felt that amendment was not possible during their current terrestrial franchises. I should like to think that perhaps at the very least the IBA will take on board the attitudes of the big companies towards genuinely independent producers when called upon to renew those franchises. That at least is possible. My right hon. Friend was also good enough to say that he would give further thought and consideration and consultation to the matter and I am grateful for that.
The hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, North-East (Mr. Freud) said that I was suggesting a quota system. He is right in a sense. I was trying to define the difference between a quota and a fixed quota, but I did not do so clearly enough. I take the point that was made and acknowledge it. The clause would implement a quota but not a fixed quota. That is important because the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Golding) asked why he should be made to watch programmes that were of bad quality. It is interesting that a fellow trade unionist should assume bad quality as a result of independent production. The fact of the matter is that no company would be compelled to buy, and were it not of good enough quality it would not. We are not engaged upon special pleading. We have been seeking free access to a free market which at present is denied us.

Mr. Golding: That is the nub of the problem for the hon. Gentleman. Let us postulate that all the programmes made by independent producers are of low quality, which is possible. Under his proposal they would have to be shown whether they were bad quality, wanted by the general public, or whatever. That is the essence of a quota, whether a fixed quota or a vairable quota. That is the

problem that he has. Once it is said that some have to be shown, one has to determine how to ensure that those that are made are either wanted by the public or are of a certain quality.

Mr. Gale: The hon. Gentleman is well aware that There is sufficient good independent programme production around to satisfy at the very least the meansest of quotas, and I contend that that is being bought at the moment by a cartel at a below-market price. I am seeking, and shall continue to seek, the production of that material. financed by the independent companies and bought in at a market price, not a sub-market price, and using the facilities provided by the independent companies.
The hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) referred to long-term practices. It is exactly those long-term practices that I and many other programme makers have found abhorrent. I cast no aspersions whatever on the quality or ability of my former colleagues at Thames Television who were excellent and did a splendid job. Had we been allowed the opportunity to do so, given the facilities and the staff that we had, if the crewing levels had been lower, we could have made more British programmes with the same people, the same technology and the same money. It is as simple as that.
The hon. Member for Great Grimsby is well aware of the union arguments surrounding the introduction of electronic news gathering in this country years behind our competitors. He is equally well aware of the debate that is going on as to whether or not the Olympics should be shown in this country, which bears on whether or not one extra production assistant should fly to America. It is to such restrictive practices that I have been referring. The hon. Member is also aware that all the industry would benefit if such practices were eliminated. We are not looking for fewer jobs, but for more jobs, performed more efficiently, leading to more British production.
12 midnight
I have to refer to this next point because I believe that it was a personal slight. The Member — I hope honourable — for Newcastle-under-Lyme referred to pecuniary self-interest. I have already said that I have none. I find it saddening that Labour Members, who have made such play throughout the debates on the Bill on the production of British material, have chosen not to support an amendment that would, perhaps, enhance the quantity of British production in cable television. Without that support, there is no point in forcing the amendment to a Division. Therefore, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 39

CHARGES FOR RECEPTION OF PROGRAMMES

Amendments made, No. 102, in page 34, line 3, after `programme', insert `or teletext'.

No. 103, in page 34, line 5, after 'him', insert
`or transmissions containing material so provided'.

No. 104, in page 34, line 6, leave out 'transmit the programmes' and insert
'broadcast the programmes or transmissions'.

No. 105, in page 34, line 10, leave out from 'Where' to 'nothing' in line 11 and insert
`under the power conferred by subsection (1) above the IBA broadcast programmes or transmissions in such a form as is mentioned in that subsection'.

No. 106, in page 34, line 13, at end insert 'or transmissions'.—[Mr. Hurd.]

Clause 40

RENTAL PAYMENTS

Amendments made, No. 107, in page 34, line 25, after first 'contractors', insert
'(other than DBS teletext contractors)'.

No. 108, in page 34, line 26, at beginning insert
'only in relation to persons who are DBS teletext contractors but are not TV or DBS programme contractors; or (v).'.

No. 109, in page 34, line 27, leave out 'and (iii)' and insert '(iii) and (iv)'.

No. 110, in page 34, leave out lines 28 to 33.

No. 111, in page 34, line 36, after 'to', insert '(a)'.

No. 112, in page 34, line 38, after 'contractors)', insert
'or (b) persons who are DBS teletext contractors,'.—[Mr. Hurd.]

Clause 41

FlNANCES OF IBA

Mr. Hurd: I beg to move amendment No. 113, in page 34, line 41, leave out from beginning to end of line 2 on page 35 and insert
'For the purposes of this section'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Paul Dean): With this, it will be convenient to take Government amendments Nos. 114, 115 and 148.

Mr. Hurd: These amendments make minor adjustments to clause 41, which provides for the way that DBS services are to be incorporate into the IBA's finances. This caused some discussion in Committee, and these amendments provide clarification.

Question put and agreed to.

Amendments made, No. 114, in page 35, leave out line 8 and insert
'shall be regarded as separate parts of that branch.
(1A) Except in so far as the Secretary of State on the application of the IBA otherwise directs, for each part of the television branch of their undertaking, it shall be the duty of the IBA so to conduct their affairs as to secure that their revenues from that part become at the earliest possible date, and thereafter continue, at least sufficient—

(a)to meet all sums properly chargeable to revenue account in respect of that part of that branch (including sums which, for the purposes of that part, are required for the repayment of loans and interest thereon, for provision for depreciation and for the maintenance of so much of the reserve fund for that branch as is attributable to that part); and
(b)to make provision towards, and as soon as practicable for, necessary capital expenditure for the purposes of that part of that branch.'

No. 115, in page 35, leave out lines 13 and 14.

Clause 42

THE BOARD

Mr. Gorst: I beg to move amendment No. 116, in page 35, line 23, leave out 'six' and insert 'nine'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take amendment No. 151, in page 46, line 34, leave out 'All the' and insert 'Three' and amendment No. 154, in page 47, line 6, leave out paragraph 3.

Mr. Gorst: This is an important issue. The purpose of this group of amendments is to leaven the composition of the Satellite Broadcasting Board so that, instead of an equality of BBC and IBA members, there are also three independent members, one of whom would be the chairman. I shall not repeat the arguments that I used in Committee to advance this proposition. I referred to the possibility of any conflict or disagreements, even among reasonable men, which would not be solved by equality of membership. Sometimes, even reasonable men can be uncompromising and intractable.
There are other arguments. First, why is there no spokesman on the new board for the new force? Perhaps my right hon. Friend will argue that the IBA representatives will fill that description, but the new force that is appointed — on the final say-so of the Home Secretary—may not be the first, second, third or fourth choice of the IBA, which will recommend them to the Home Secretary, but will come from some other group. That force will not feel that it is well represented on the SBB by the IBA representatives. That is the first reason why I think that the elements involved should include an independent section.
Equally, there is another argument, to which I referred in passing in Committee. I shall spell it out in slightly more detail now. Clause 42(3) says that it is the duty of the IBA to supply services. I asked in Committee why that had to be a duty rather then a permissive power. No answer was given and it is important to understand what the consequences of that obligation may be.
What will happen will have an effect on members of the IBA who may be appointed to the SBB. They will have a contract to supply services to the SBB, but under schedule 1 to the 1981 Act, they are precluded from taking part in IBA proceedings if they have a declarable interest in a contract, which means that having got a contract with the SBB, they will be excluded from taking part in any IBA discussions about that contract.
How, therefore, can those people be full members of the IBA and of the SBB? In short, how can they fulfil two conflicting statutory duties? They will have to be part time, at least in one of their statutory duties. There will be a gap, presumably in the SBB, on some occasions and the need for independent members may arise when matters relating to the supply of services are discussed.
But it does not stop there. The status of the staff of the IBA will be changed; to whom will their first allegiance lie if they are seconded to work for the SBB? Would the board have first call on their loyalty if it were in conflict with the IBA on, say, a matter of policy, or would it be vice versa?
My right hon. Friend the Minister must consider how to resolve such matters. The answer may be not to make it mandatory on the IBA to supply services but to leave it to informal agreements, in which case the problem of contracts and the difficulties to which I have referred will not arise.
Nevertheless, such problems and the possibility of disputes and disagreements require a set-up analogous to that of the Manpower Service Commission, ACAS or the Health and Safety Executive, which have two main sides


involved and two or three independent members who form the balance. The need for an independent element on the SBB is unanswerable and I hope that my right hon. Friend, who said in Committee that he would look again at this matter, but whose glance at it has not borne fruit in the shape of an amendment, will have something reassuring to say.

Mr. Hurd: As my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, North (Mr. Gorst) said, I promised to look at this matter further and I have done so, but we are not persuaded that the change that he suggests is necessary.
It is common ground that we need a separate broadasting authority for the joint project, because its programmes will be neither the BBC's nor the IBA's, but there will be a need for a regulatory authority and we have suggested the formation of the SBB, with a limited life and function.
I listened carefully to my hon. Friend and his main argument for introducing a third element into the SBB is that there is likely to be friction and difficulty between the BBC and the IBA unless there are, in the terms of his amendment, three people, acting as umpires.
To some extent, that is to misunderstand the regulatory function of the board. Many of the functions that my hon. Friend mentioned in Committee will not be performed by the board but will be the responsibility of the joint venture company. It is on the joint venture company that the independent participants, whom we have keenly insisted should have a place, will need to be and want to be represented. Such matters as raising capital, funding debts, allocation of peak-time programming between the participants and others that affect responsibility for the success or failure of the venture, including the conduct of negotiations with trade unions, are not matters for the SBB but for the joint venture company on which there will be a different form of representation.
The board's responsibility will be to supervise the standards of the programmes provided by the consortium. It will need to harmonise the regulatory practices of the BBC and the IBA and build on their experience. I see no reason, in those circumstances, why the board should be deadlocked. It can determine its own rules of procedure and give the chairman a casting vote. An independent chairman might increase the risk of the BBC and the IBA people on the board representing their sectional interests instead of working together. The will to work together is clear.
My hon. Friend raised a point that has caused us some difficulty as to the nature of the obligation to provide services. I draw his attention to the fact that the request must be reasonable and that the services must be supplied on commercial terms. I do not think that there will be a problem about conflicting duties, which my hon. Friend foresaw, for members of the IBA. The duty in the Broadcasting Act 1981 is concerned with IBA members who have a personal interest in a contract that is being discussed. The IBA members of the SBB will not have such a personal interest as they will be acting for a board that has been set up under statute to regulate the joint project. I am advised, therefore, that that problem will not arise.
The Chairman of the BBC and of the IBA are keen to co-operate.

Mr. Gorst: Why is it not possible to rely on section 3(3) of the 1981 Act which says that

the powers of the Authority shall extend to the carrying on of such businesses and the doing of such things as arise out of the other activities of the Authority"?
That would give all that is required of the IBA without the need for that part of clause 42 to which exception is taken.

Mr. Hurd: Is my hon. Friend referring to the provision of services?

Mr. Gorst: Yes.

Mr. Hurd: Surely it is sensible to pick that up in the Bill. In the light of the explanation that I have given, I do not think that the mischief that my hon. Friend fears could arise. We gave some thought to this point and decided that it was sensible to use the present form rather than a permissive one, which might not have the necessary strength.
Bearing in mind the limited and purely regulatory nature of the board, it is sensible to organise it in this way and to rely on the pooling of experience between the two existing regulatory agencies.

Mr. Gorst: In view of my right hon. Friend's reasonableness, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment, although I am not satisfied with the reply.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 43

PROVISION OF PROGRAMMES

Mr. Gorst: I beg to move amendment No 117. in page 35, line 39 leave out
'the Secretary of State after consultation with'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take amendment No 118, in page 35, line 40 leave out `Secretary of State' and insert 'Satellite Broadcasting Board'.

Mr. Gorst: Amendment No 117 removes the Home Secretary from direct involvement in the choice of approval of people involved in satellite programme provision. I believe that amendment No 118 is an equally acceptable alternative. I mean no disrespect to my right hon. Friend the Minister or to my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary by saying that it is better to leave politicians of whatever political persuasion out of contact with the selection of programme contractors.

Mr. Austin Mitchell: I find myself in such strong agreement with the hon. Member for Hendon, North (Mr. Gorst) that I have deserted the workers' co-operative that is running the Opposition Front Bench and returned to the Back Benches to express the strength of that agreement.
The case for amendment No. 118, is exactly the same as that for amendment No. 117. It seems unreasonable that the Secretary of State should take part in a decision on who should participate in the programming company for direct broadcasting by satellite. First, unlike the IBA, he does not have the staff or the expertise to carry on the necessary research into the intentions, backing and prospectuses of the competing groups that want to take part in the programme company. Secondly, such detailed research would be done much better by the IBA.
Thirdly, it would be wrong for the Minister to decide what is, in effect, a question of political patronage, because one of two things can happen. The expenses may


be huge, and profits small. I am told that there is a break-even point of two million viewers. The financial risks of participation in the project are considerable. If the financial risks do not pay off the Home Secretary will be, in a sense, in debt to those who have been persuaded to take part in the programme company in much the same way as the Home Office found itself in debt to those who had been persuaded to bid for the 11 contracts in the cable franchises, who have had to be compensated, as we have seen this evening.
If DBS is not successful, the Home Secretary will find himself in debt to those who participate in it. If it is successful, he will be accused of handing out rich pickings to his friends. Either situation is undesirable. It would be much better for the matter to be in the hands of the Satellite Broadcasting Board established by clause 42. That would be a much more straightforward procedure.

Mr. Hurd: These amendments would take from my right hon. and learned Friend the responsibility for approving the programme provider, and give that responsibility to an independent body. My hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) choose slightly different independent bodies.
Involving the IBA in this field presents a difficulty. In due course the IBA will provide its own DBS services, under clause 37 et sequens. When the IBA has those DBS powers—quite different from those of the joint project —it will be entirely independent in its selection of programme contractors just as it is in the award of the terrestrial franchises. Those services will compete with the joint project. It would be odd and unfair to ask the authority to decide the composition of the programme provider for the joint project, which will in due course be competing with the IBA's own services.
The joint venture is to be divided equally between the BBC and the private sector, each taking 50 per cent. The IBA and the BBC would both be placed in an awkward position if the IBA was given the final say on the nature and extent of the BBC's participation.
The hon. Member for Great Grimsby backs the other horse—the SBB. The answer lies in the importance that my right hon. and learned Friend attaches to allowing companies other than the established broadcasters to participate. We have insisted from the beginning that there should be the very important third element. The joint project should not consist simply of the BBC and such ITV companies as wish to take part. Rather than leave the final decision on participation either to the IBA or to the SBB —which we have just agreed should be composed of members of the IBA and the BBC—we prefer to leave the final decision with my right hon. and learned Friend.
Before taking that decision, my right hon. and learned Friend will receive considerable help from the IBA on at least one of the hon. matters which the Member for Great Grimsby has raised. We are not setting up machinery in the Home Office to deal with these issues for we shall rely on the help and experience of the IBA while reserving to my right hon. and learned Friend the final decision. I referred in Committee to the expressions of serious interest that the IBA had received—it was then the latest news —and the way in which it was scrutinising them, and I shall not repeat myself now for the situation remains the same. We are going ahead with the procedure that we have

set out and we consider it to be a good method. Accordingly, we think it reasonable to ask the House to approve it. We think that it fits the circumstances rather better than the two options that have been presented.

Mr. Gorst: I thank my right hon. Friend for his reply. I believe that the House will regret giving these powers to the Secretary of State of the day, but I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Hurd: I beg to move amendment No. 119, in page 36, line 9, leave out from second 'that' to end of line 12 and insert—
'(a) no person who is a disqualified person, and no body corporate over which a disqualified person has control, becomes or continues as the programme provider (whether alone or in partnership); and
(b) no body corporate in which a disqualified person participates becomes or continues as the sole programme provider.'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take the following: amendment No. 120, in page 36, line 11, after 'participate', insert 'directly or indirectly' and Government amendments Nos. 122 and 125.

Mr. Hurd: The amendments are designed to ensure that the power to disqualify a person as a programme provider does not operate more stringently in relation to one form of programme providing organisation than another.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment made: No. 122, in page 36, leave out lines 30 to 34.—[Mr. Hurd.]

Mr. Gorst: I beg to move amendment No. 124, in page 37, line 5, at end insert
`but does not include any aspect relating to the nature and characteristics of the programming that has been or may be broadcast by that corporate body.'.
The purpose of the amendment is to prevent the Home Secretary of the day from engineering the dismissal of a programme provider whose programmes he found not to be of his taste, politics or standards. The possibility of an amendment to exclude programming as a consideration was discussed in Committee and my right hon. Friend said that he would consider again the necessity to introduce such an amendment. There seemed to be some doubt whether programming even arose as a purpose within the definition in the appropriate clause.
Will my right hon. Friend assure me that the Home Secretary of the day would not expect to be able to get rid of one of the members of a consortium, or whatever the new force will turn out to be, whose programming is taken exception to for political or any other reasons?

Mr. Hurd: As I understand it, my hon. Friend is trying to protect my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary from having to make awkward decisions. He is trying also to prevent any successor from taking tyrannical and arbitrary decisions. He is right to have those two objectives. I hope that I can give him the assurance that he is seeking.
The relevant phrase is
nature and charcteristics of, that body",
which is to be found in the clause. That is concerned with matters other than programme content. The clause gives my right hon. and learned Friend the power to withdraw his approval of the programme provider if there is
any change affecting participants in, or the nature and characteristics of, that body".


I am advised that that could not be construed as giving the Home Secretary power or any say, even indirectly, over programmes. Schedule 4 makes it clear that it is the function of the board and the board alone to have a say over programming.
The phrase
nature and characteristics of, that body
describes the corporate activities and not the quality of its programmes. It describes the owners of the company, the nature of its business and the type of matters that are authorised in the articles of association, which set out the aims and objectives of the company. It is reasonable that that power should exist over that aspect of the programme provider, but I accept that it should not apply to the content of the programmes.

Mr. Gorst: This is the last amendment that I have tabled and at last I am able to say that I am completely satisfied with my right hon. Friend's reply. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment made: No. 125 in page 37, line 5, at end insert—
'(8) For the purposes of this section and section 44 below a person participates in a body corporate if (whether alone or jointly with one or more other persons, and whether directly or through nominees) he holds or is beneficially entitled to shares, or possesses voting power, in the body corporate:. — [Mr.Hurd.]

Clause 44

APPLICATION OF 1981 ACT AND OTHER ENACTMENTS

Amendments made: No. 126, in page 37, line 6, at the beginning insert
'Subject to subsection (1A) below'.

No. 127, in page 37, line 9, leave out 'and TV
programme' and insert
'TV programme contractors and teletext'

No. 128, in page 37, line 10, at end insert—
'(1A) In its application to the Board, subsection (2) of section 43 of the 1981 Act (Annual reports) shall have effect as if it required the report for any financial year to include an account of the extent to which the programmes broadcast by the Board have been supplied to the programme provider by persons other than those mentioned in subsection (1B) below.
(1B) The persons referred to in subsection (1A) above are—

(a) where a body corporate is the programme provider in partnership with other person, an associate of that body corporate, a person who has control over that body corporate and a body corporate which is under control of such a person; and
(b) where a body corporate is the sole programme provider, a person who participates in that body corporate, an associate of such a person and a body corporate which is under the control of such a person.'.

No. 129, in page 37, line 20, leave out
'enactments (other than provisions of the 1981 Act)'
and insert
'other enactments (including provisions of this Act)'.

No. 130, in page 37, line 21, leave out 'or TV
programme' and insert
'TV programme contractors or teletext' .—[Mr. Hurd.]

Clause 45

EXTENSION OF DURATION OF IBA's FUNCTION

Amendment made: No. 132, in page 37, line 33, at end insert—

'(2) In subsection (5) of that section (power of Secretary of State to extend the duration of the function of the IBA) for the words "any date not later than 31st December 2001" there shall be substituted the words "any later date".'.—[Mr. Hurd.]

Clause 46

No NEED FOR IBA TO INVITE APPLICATIONS BEFORE ENTERING INTO CERTAIN CONTRACTS

Mr. Austin Mitchell: I beg to move amendment No. 133, in page 37, line 36, after 'programmes', insert
`by companies which participate in the "programme provider" for DBS'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take amendment No. 135, in page 37, line 41, at end insert
'where the IBA is satisfied that a programme contractor has

(a) complied in all material respects with its previous contract and
(b) made a substantial investment in the programme provider referred to in section 43 above.'.

Mr. Mitchell: The intention of my amendment is to make explicit what I assume the Government are doing by clause 46. If clause 46 is to remove the obligation on the IBA to readvertise its contracts for the regional programming companies in the way that it has done in the past to provide for competitive bids, and then a reshuffling of the cards after an adjudication by the IBA, this should be made explicit, in the sense that it should not refer only to those companies which participate in the direct broadcasting by satellite, or DBS, because that seems to be what the Government want. To lure companies into DBS, they are offering the prospect of automatic renewal of the contract. If that is what the Government are doing, let us make it explicit by making it apply only to companies which participate in DBS. For companies which do not participate in DBS, surely the safeguard of the periodic reshuffling of the pack should remain in force then as it has in previous periods. It is a means of bringing new talent and new ideas into the industry, and allowing regional groups to form and reform to provide competitors for existing companies. Those needs are as strong as ever and should be maintained unless there is a need to encourage companies into DBS and to provide foil a situation in which the main trunk of the company participating in DBS cannot be chopped down by the IBA in the way in which it chopped down ATV, Southern Television and other companies in the past.

Mr. Hurd: We rightly spent some time in Standing Committee on the provision for some minimum relaxation of the normal arrangements for franchise renewal. I explained to the Committee why we felt it necessary to make the move. It was in view of the case made by the ITV companies that, as a result of the franchise system, they could lose their reason for existence overnight, and that might seriously damage their ability to service capital for DBS. I can see the logic of what the hon. Member proposes but it is not what we have in mind.
In fairness, I think it would be difficult to confine the minimum concession to some ITV companies and to deny it to others. The other point is that it would constitute an inducement to participate in DBS because of the possible franchise gain. That has not and has never been our idea. My right hon. and learned Friend has been particularly insistent that we do not want to try to persuade any companies to participate in DBS except on their own


assessment of the prospects for the joint venture. We do not wish to tempt them in that way. Therefore, after a certain amount of thought, we have decided that, having agreed to make this minimum relaxation, it should apply to all ITV companies, whether or not they participate in the joint venture.

Mr. Austin Mitchell: I find the Minister's reply unsatisfactory because it is so vague. The prospect is being held out to companies that if they participate in DBS they will have automatic renewal. Indeed, it was avowed in the Committee, when it was argued that it would be dangerous for the main trunk of the company, from which it drew its financial viability, to be removed, thus threatening its ability to raise loans and all the financial paraphernalia necessary to participate in direct broadcasting by satellite.
The periodic renewals of contracts and the reshuffling of the cards has had a revivifying effect on ITV. Indeed, one dates ITV by periods beginning in 1967, with contract renewal, and again in 1980, which mark the incursion of new talent and new ideas. It is desirable that that framework should continue.
By making it vague in this fashion, the Minister seems to be giving the idea carte blanche not to go ahead. I feel that the Minister's reply is not satisfactory, but it is late and I have a strong desire not to refuse sausage and chips. It seems that Mitchell's amendment may hang that this juryman might dine.
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 47

PROVISION OF TRANSMITTING EQUIPMENT FOR NATIONAL SOUND BROADCASTING SERVICE

Amendment made: No. 139, in page 38, line 40, leave out 'Telecommunications Act 1984' and insert '1984 Act'. —[Mr. Hurd.]

Clause 48

CONTROL OF LIVE BROADCASTING FROM ABROAD OF PROGRAMME MATERIAL ORIGINATING IN THE UNITED KINGDOM

Amendment made: No. 140, in page 39, line 1, leave out Clause 48.—[Mr. Hurd.]

Clause 50

REPEAL OF CERTAIN PROVISIONS BY ORDER

Amendment made: No. 141, in page 39, line 28, after `fit', insert 'also'.—[Mr. Hurd.]

Clause 51

INTERPRETATION OF PART II

Amendments made: No. 142, in page 39, line 39, leave out subsection (1).

No. 143, in page 39, leave out line 42. — [Mr. Hurd.]

No. 144, in page 40, line 2, leave out 'and "DBS programme contractor"' and insert
'"DBS programme contractor" and "DBS teletext contractor"'.—[Mr. Hurd.]

Clause 53

TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS

Amendments made: No. 145, in page 40, line 16, leave out 'Telecommunications Act 1984' and insert '1984 Act'.

No. 146, in page 40, line 21, leave out `Telecommunications Act 1984' and insert '1984 Act'. —[Mr. Hurd.]

Clause 54

SHORT TITLE, EXTENT AND COMMENCEMENT

Mr. Hurd: I beg to move amendment No. 147, in page 40, line 30, leave out 'Part II of.
The amendment deals with the application of the Bill to the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment made: No. 148, in page 40, line 33 leave out 'Subject to section 41(4)'—[Mr. Hurd.]

Schedule 4

PROVISIONS OF 1981 ACT APPLIED BY SECTION 44(1)

Amendment made: No. 155, in page 49, leave out lines 15 to 17 and insert—


'Section 14(1).
Provision of teletext services by IBA.


Section 15.
Code for teletext transmissions.' —[Mr. Hurd.]

Schedule 5

MINOR AND CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS

Amendments made: No. 156, in page 49, line 36, leave out from beginning to end of line 4 on page 50.—[Mr. Hurd.]

No. 157, in page 50, line 38, at end insert
'as they apply in relation to newspapers'.

No. 158, in page 51, line 9 at end insert
'as it applies in relation to newspapers'.

No. 159, in page 51, line 11 leave out 'Copyright Act 1956' and insert '1956 Act'.

No. 160, in page 51 leave out lines 35 to 37.

No. 161, in page 51, line 38 leave out 'section 14(10)' and insert
`subsection (10) of section 14'.

No. 162, in page 52, line 3at end insert—
'(8A) After that subsection there shall be inserted the following subsection—
(11) The foregoing provisions of this section shall have effect as if references in those provisions and in section 12(9) of this Act to sounds included references to signals serving for the impartation of matter otherwise than in the form of sounds or visual images.".'.—[Mr. Hurd.]

Mr. Hurd: I beg to move amendment No. 163, in page 53, line 33 at beginning insert—

`For the purposes of this Act no account shall be taken of a cable programme service if, and to the extent that, it is provided for—

(a) a person providing another such service;
(b) the Corporation; or
(c) the Authority;
and for the purposes of this subsection a cable programme service provided for the Welsh Fourth Channel Authority, the subsidiary mentioned in section 12(2) of the Broadcasting Act 1981 or a programme contractor within the meaning of that Act shall be treated as provided for the Authority.

(3B)'

This is a technical amendment to remove from the purview of copyright cable transmissions between broadcasting and similar organisations intended for networking purposes, and not for direct reception by the public.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments made:

No. 164, in page 54, line 20 leave out from first 'of' to `to' in line 23 and insert
`the said Act of 1984 or a service provided outside the United Kingdom which would be such a service if subsection (7) of section 2 of that Act and references in subsection (1) of that section.

No. 166, in page 55, line 36 after 'or', insert 'for'.

No. 167, in page 57, line 14 leave out
'service within the meaning of Part I of the Cable and Broadcasting Act 1984'
and insert 'cable programme service'.

No. 168, in page 58, line 36 at end insert
`as they apply in relation to newspapers'.

No. 169, in page 58, line 40 after 'or', insert 'for'.

No. 170, in page 59, line 4 after 'or', insert 'for'.

No. 171, in page 59, line 11 after 'a', insert `licensable'.

No. 172, in page 59, line 22 after 'a', insert 'licensed'.

No. 173, in page 62, line 38 leave out 'Broadcasting Act 1981' and insert '1981 Act'.

No. 174, in page 63, leave out lines 14 to 19.

No. 175, in page 63, line 19 at end insert—
'(5A) For subsection (2) of section 42 of that Act (accounts and audit) there shall be substituted the following subsections—

(2) The accounts of the Authority shall be audited by auditors to be appointed by the Authority with the approval of the Secretary of State.
(2A) A person shall not be qualified to be appointed as an auditor in pursuance of subsection (2) above unless he is a member of one or more of the following bodies—

the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales;
the Institute of Chartered Accountants of Scotland;
the Association of Certified Accountants;
the Institute of Chartered Accountants in Ireland;
 any other body of accountants established in the United Kingdom and for the time being recognised for the purposes of section 161(1)(a) of the Companies Act 1948 by the Secretary of State;
but a Scottish firm may be so appointed if each of the partners in the firm is qualified to be so appointed.".'.

No. 176, in page 63, line 24 leave out
`(unless the contrary intention appears)'.

No. 177, in page 63, leave out lines 26 to 30 and insert—
'(7) After paragraph 1 of Schedule 4 to that Act (rental payments) there shall be inserted the following paragraph—
1A. In the principal sections (other than section 33(1)) and the following provisions of this Schedule references to advertising receipts—

(a) in relation to a DBS programme contractor, and in relation to any period, include references to payments received or to be received by that contractor in respect of charges made for the reception of programmes provided by him and broadcast in a DBS service in that period; and
(b) in relation to a teletext contractor, and in relation to any period, include references to payments received or to be received by that contractor in respect of charges made for the reception of programmes provided by him and broadcast in a DBS or additional teletext service in that period."
(7A) In paragraph 2 of that Schedule—'.

No. 178, in page 63, line 37, at end insert—
`(bb) in sub-paragraph (7) for the words "the provisions of paragraph 1" there shall be substituted the words "the foregoing provisions of this Schedule"; and'.

No. 179, in page 63, line 43, at end insert—
'(9) At the end of paragraph 8(2) of Schedule 7 to that Act (the Broadcasting Complaints Commission: supplementary provisions) there shall be inserted the words "but a Scottish firm may be so appointed if each of the partners in the firm is qualified to be so appointed".'.

No. 180, in page 64, line 3, after 'a', insert `licensable'.

No. 181, in page 64, line 27, leave out `Telecommunications Act 1984' and insert '1984 Act'. —[Mr. Hurd.]

Mr. Brinton: I beg to move amendment No. 182, in page 64, line 38, leave out 'licensable' and insert 'cable programme'.
The object of the amendment is to extend the obligatory consultations between Oftel and the cable authority to licensing of interactive services and teletext services. As the Bill stands, the director of Oftel or the Secretary of State has to consult the authority when granting or revoking a licence within the meaning of part I of the Cable and Broadcasting Act. By substituting "cable programme" service for "licensable" service, the definition would be broadened to include teletext and other interactive services which are covered by cable programme service and not by just the licensable service in clause 2(1) and (2). This measure will be beneficial to the Bill. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister of State will consider it.

Mr. Hurd: I take this last opportunity to thank all hon. Members, especially my right hon. and hon. Friends, for all the help they have given us in Standing Committee and throughout the rest of the proceedings. I understand the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham (Mr. Brinton) and the purpose of his amendment. I stress, as I have done before, that we cannot think of cable systems in isolation — they are just one form of the whole range of telecommunications systems. The amendment would apply to the range of systems, not just to those that we have commonly called cable systems.
Let us take the case of two companies wishing to set up a computer link between themselves or their subsidiaries. At each end the information is received on a visual display. This would be a telecommunications system, and as such the companies involved would need to apply to the Secretary of State for a licence under the Telecommunications Act 1984. The amendment would mean that the Secretary of State would have to consult the cable authority as well. That would be unnecessarily bureaucratic, because the cable authority in that case would have only an indirect interest at best. No doubt there will be cases where businesses and domestic services are delivered over the same system.
I am not suggesting that the cable authority should be precluded from giving its views when a decision of the telecommunications licensing authorities is likely to affect its own licensees. Of course, the cable authority is free to offer advice, as I am sure it would do, and the Secretary of State would listen carefully to what the authority had to say. I doubt, however, if it is really necessary to provide in those circumstances for the procedures which my hon. Friend proposed.
Licences are not available on demand, because the Secretary of State can grant a licence only if it complies with the firm duties set out in section 3 of the Telecommunications Act. For example — I know that this touches on the type of example that my hon. Friend has in mind—the Secretary of State must first ensure that if there is a reasonable demand for telecommunications service for instance, the demand from people in a particular area to have information services conveyed to them by the second operator, he must grant a licence. He can do so only if he is satisfied that by granting a licence for an additonal system he will not damage the ability of those already providing a service to continue to provide them to meet all reasonable demands. I believe that that provision offers protection in the type of cases about which my hon. Friend is understandably anxious.

Mr. Brinton: In view of that somewhat encouraging reply and the statements made by my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, I believe that the issue has been clarified. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendments made: No. 183, in page 64, line 38, leave out
`service within the meaning of Part I of the Cable and Broadcasting Act 1984',
and insert 'cable programme service'.

No. 184, in page 64, line 42, at end insert—
'(lA) In subsection (1) of section 42 of that Act (fraudulent use of telecommunication system) for the words "service provided by means of a licensed telecommunication system" there shall be substituted the words "service to which this subsection applies".
(1B) In subsection (2) of that section for the words "In this section 'licensed telecommunication system' means" there shall

be substituted the words "Subsection (1) above applies to any service (other than a service to which section (Fraudulently receiving certain programmes) of the Cable and Broadcasting Act 1984 applies) which is provided by means of .'.

No. 185, in page 64, line 45, at end insert—

'The Video Recordings Act 1984

47. For paragraph (b) of section 3(8) of the Video Recordings Act 1984 (exempted supplies) there shall be substituted the following paragraph—
(b) a cable programme service which is or does not require to be licensed.—.[Mr. Hurd.]

Schedule 6

REPEALS

Amendments made: No. 186, in page 65, line 8, at end add—


'15 &amp; 16Geo. 6 &amp; 1
 The Defamation Act.1952.
 Section 16 (4)
Eliz. 2. c. 66. 1955 c.11 (N.I.).
The Defamation Act (Northern Ireland) 1955.
Section 14.(3).'.

No. 187, in page 65, line 23, at end insert—


'1969 c. 48
The Post Office Act 1969
In Schedule 4, paragraph 53.

No. 188, in page 65, column 3, leave out line 33.

No. 189, in page 65, line 51, column 3, at end insert—




'In Schedule 4, paragraphs 30 and 32:. —[Mr. Hurd.]

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Leon Brittan): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
The Bill deals with two, not wholly separate, technologies: wide-band cable, and satellite for direct broadcasting to the home. Neither development can be looked at purely in technological terms. There are social, economic and cultural implications for the way people live their lives, do their work and spend their leisure time. The Government's overall approach was made clear when we debated the cable White Paper in June last year. Our task, as I said then, is not to make constant judgments about what forms of economic activity may or may not succeed; rather it is to establish the financial and regulatory framework with which customer satisfaction and economic progress can be achieved while the public interest is safeguarded.
Already the cable entertainment revolution has started in this country. We have four services being distributed over the old narrow-band systems and more on their way. Eleven pilot projects are planning to start their services next year. When the Cable Authority is established, the process of granting further cable franchises can begin. With regard to DBS, the joint project will be aiming to launch its three channel services by late 1987. Three years later we shall be opening up the possibility of further DBS services provided under the aegis of the IBA and in full competition with the joint project service. These developments will mark a major extension of customer choice in broadcasting. All of us, on both sides of the House, should welcome that.
There is one further point that I should make that relates particularly to cable. The Bill, for reasons that have often been explained, deals mainly with the entertainment services which cable will supply, but the Government's


interest goes much wider than that. We see the Bill as having a significant long-term potential for the way in which people do their work and arrange their lives. It is for that reason that we are anxious to create the right framework in which cable systems can develop and prosper. I can assure the House that the Cable Authority, in exercising its regulatory functions relating to entertainment services, will have that wider perspective in view as it sets about its task.
I wish to thank my right hon. Friend the Minister of State for steering the Bill through Committee so admirably and those of my hon. Friends who took part in the Committee proceedings and made such a constructive contribution to it and to Opposition Members.
The Bill is designed to harness the latest technological developments in cable and satellite for the benefit of our manufacturing and service industries and for the customer at home. There is much more to this potential revolution than a simple increase in the number of outlets for programme services. The main object of the Bill has been to set the framework for the new era in the development of television and radio services in this country. I hope that in doing so it will come to be seen, much as the original Television Act, which was passed 30 years ago this month, was seen as a watershed in the development of television services in this country. It is for those reasons that I commend the Bill to the House.

Mr. Denis Howell: I have listened with great interest to what the Home Secretary said. It has been a pleasure to have been involved with the Bill although I still have many criticisms of it, one or two of which I feel a duty to utter even at this late hour. Most important is the fact that in Committee and on Report we have had 207 Government amendments and 37 new clauses. That is extraordinary. It shows that the Government have been making up television policy as they went along. There is no coherent philosophy on broadcasting and television policy.
I have some sympathy for the Minister of State who told us earlier that some of the matters had been raised as the Bill proceeded and that plainly they had to be dealt with. That is so, but the fact that we have had to deal with them piecemeal cannot give any of us satisfaction. A broadcasting and television policy is vital to the nation. I do not believe that there is a household in the country that does not listen to the radio or watch television and which will not be interested in the future of cable and DBS.
That being so, I submit that there should have been longer discussion in the House before the Bill was embarked upon so that we had the philosophy right and understood what the policy was to be. I regret the fact that that opportunity was largely missed.
Despite that, we welcome the Government's principal philosophy which is that we should provide the maximum choice for the people of this country. It is for them to exercise their choice.
There are still some problems which worry us and which I shall mention briefly. I asked the Minister in Committee once or twice what we should see on DBS, because halfway through the proceedings the Government announced that they would set up an authority for DBS as distinct from cable television. I still do not know the answer to that question. People will not put dishes up and pay large sums for DBS unless it provides a substantial service. I take comfort in that thought. Nevertheless the

House and the country are entitled to know the sort of programmes which the Government expect will be shown and made available on the DBS network. I expect that the new joint service provided by the BBC and ITV will consist mainly of news items and items on which the authorities think it reasonable not to compete to supply. If that is correct, I cannot imagine that many people will pay the sums involved to obtain access to the new service.
During the passage of the Bill, the Opposition were excessively anxious to protect the interests of the trade unions and those working in the industry for home produced material. It was a recurring theme on Second Reading, in Committee and on Report. I welcome in part the fact that we start with an obligation on the new cable authority to produce a "proper proportion" of British material. We do not know that a "proper proportion" is. We know that in ITV it is now set at 86 per cent. I agree with the Minister that it would be unreasonable to impose a fixed percentage at the inception of cable television. However, it is important to maintain and protect standards. Trade unions will take comfort from the fact that the phrase "proper proportion", although it must be identified and defended by the new authorities, appears on the Bill. The Bill was improved by the Government's agreement to add the provision that thereafter there shall be an increasing proportion of home-made material.
That enabled us, albeit with reservations, to agree that the rights of trade unions and trade to negotiate about these matters with the new authorities had been maintained and could be the subject of argument.
I have a programme analysis from the 30 April to 14 May of some of the programmes operating already, and reading it one understands the worry of the trade union movement. In week one of the programming of cable television there were 22·5 hours of United States programmes on sports alone, such as karate, wrestling, high school cheerleading championships and drag racing. That is an extraordinary concoction for which to pay. There is a considerable amount of motor sport, one hour of sponsored films and one hour of original programming, which included "Talking point" and "The Book Programme".
In week two United States programming had 21 hours, which included rodeo, karate, wrestling, motor sports and similar programmes. In week three the United States content occupied 23 hours of programming. It included shark fishing, water ski-ing, rodeo and boxing. I cannot believe that that mixture spells success, and even those who support cable television more enthusiastically than I do would be a little alarmed about such programming if it continued.
The Opposition are still very worried about stations such as Radio Luxembourg, although we acknowledge what the Government have done to help tonight. We are gravely concerned about programmes made in Britain being sent overseas and then channelled back here. Although we wish to increase the choice available to the British public, we wish to do it without debasing the present standards of the BBC and the independent companies. I have detected some fear in the Government on this matter. They wish to maintain those standards while extending the choice, and it will be difficult to achieve both objectives. One can only hope that the new authorities will succeed. If they report annually and the House debates those reports, I hope that we can ensure that they meet both sets of criteria.
I must repeat that the Opposition are afraid that the Chancellor's withdrawal of capital allowances has made the entire operation shaky. The sceptics who believe that cable television will not get off the ground might well be right. Many companies are re-assessing their positions and asking themselves whether their investments, which will give a return only after a long period, can be justified. If that proves to be true, the exercise will have been a charade. I hope that that will not be the case and that the Government's original purpose—which we support—to extend public service and choice is realised. We have the gravest doubts, but we wish the new services well.

Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: Some of us welcomed cable from the outset, and I thank my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary and his colleagues in the Home Office for their diligence in steering the Bill through the House so successfully. Therefore, it is no criticism of my right hon. and learned Friend to say that there is less enthusiasm for the development of multichannel cablevision than there was a year ago. The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell) gave one reason for that attitude. There is a much less favourable tax structure, and I am told that, for many people, the cable operator's licence is either unintelligible or that there is too much emphasis on uneconomic services. Criticism also follows from the fact that there appears to some to be a delayed availability of new technical standards which, when issued, may have a retrospective effect. There is also perceived to be increasing competition, amounting almost to a conflict, between cable and DBS. There are many more criticisms and doubts which have led to the growth in scepticism, but the hour is late and I shall not mention them.
I recognise that many of the problems do not lie within the responsibility of my right hon. and learned Friend. He has laid down the general financial and administrative framework, if not with the same light touch as adumbrated by my right hon. and noble Friend Viscount Whitelaw. However, it has achieved the main objective of Conservative Members, which was not to set up a super-interfering bureaucracy. My right hon. and learned Friend has understood the difference between the role of the IBA and broadcasting and narrowcasting.
The time has come for my right hon. and learned Friend and his colleagues to hand over the torch to the Department of Industry, which at times has been remarkably silent about this exercise. The Government should also restate what they have achieved so far and what they expect from manufacturers as well as those who desire to be cable operators. Most importantly, we need a restatement that the Government are still committed, as ever they were, to the concept that cable has a distinctive part to play in the nation's system of communications.
Too many people are knocking it, including the right hon. Member for Small Heath. All we heard from him was references to cable in the context of television broadcasting. There was not a mention of interactivity or services. Given the knocking that has gone on, it is little wonder that a feeling has grown that cable is only about providing television. It is not an alternative to the present system of television, or to the present methods of

television entertainment. Nor is it merely a rival or an alternative to DBS, however much that may be stated by people in the existing broadcasting organisations.
Cable can, and should, be seen as complementary to terrestrial and satellite broadcasting. By its capacity to provide interactivity and a multiplicity of services and programmes, cable is unique, but this uniqueness and the way it fits into the pattern of communications in this country is not sufficiently well understood.
Having sat through much of the debate I know that it is not well understood by some hon. Members. How much more is that likely to be true of people outside, many of whom are entrepreneurs who are willing to take up the torch and challenge but are confused by the conflicting views that are often expressed here and elsewhere?
While I congratulate my right hon. Friends on what they have been able to do so far in the important but limited area of their office, I believe that if the Government want this innovative medium of communications to succeed and to take off, they should seize further opportunities to restate their conviction that cable has a valuable and powerful role to play in this country.

Mr. Golding: I congratulate the hon. Member for Wealden (Sir G. Johnson Smith) on his contribution, but I go further. He said that as the Home Office had done its work the Department of Industry should now turn its attention to the matter. That is cart before horse in terms of the hon. Gentleman's argument.
The arguments about whether the contracts should be for 13 or 15 years and about the impact of the Chancellor on investment allowances for cable have illustrated the shallowness of the Government's approach.
I agree with the hon. Member for Wealden that we need cable for many other things besides television or radio. It must be provided in the best possible manner within a national framework and should be as technically advanced as possible. That will not be achieved by the way in which the Government are proceeding.
This measure is called the Cable and Broadcasting Bill. That is a misnomer, because it is about cable programmes. That is why some of my hon. Friends have over-concentrated on the programme side.
This legislation should have been about the provision of cable and the modernisation of telecommunications. There is much to be said for the argument that the provision of the network should have been included in the Telecommunications Act, however much I dislike it.
Again I declare my interest, since I speak for the Post Office Engineering Union. I am among those who do not believe that it is bad to represent interests in the House. It is not bad for people to believe in what they say or to know a little about the subjects that they discuss. I do not apologise that interests are represented, although they were probably more fully represented when we debated the Bill setting up commercial radio in the mid-1970s.
The Opposition have always believed that cable should be used to integrate telecommunications, data transmission and broadcasting. We have always believed that the system should be under public control and in the ownership of British Telecommunications. Nothing that I have seen or heard has dissuaded me from that view.
It would have been far better for the Government to proceed with cable on the basis of the separation of the ownership of the cable system from the use of that system


through the programme companies. It would have been possible to give a cable service that provided for data transmission, and I believe that data transmission interactive services will be more important in the future than the multiplicity of television channels. That would have been more likely had there been this separation. The Government have made a mistake in the Bill by not separating them. Instead they have said that the programmes come first and, as an afterthought, they will provide the wherewithal, the cable system.
To Britain in the 1990s and the year 2000, the cable system will be more important than the road and rail systems. The Government do not appear to have grasped that yet. There are those in the Government who make speeches about the development of telecommunications and about the new information technology revolution, but this legislation does not acknowledge that.
The Government argued that to proceed on their basis would be to create jobs over the next couple of years. Those jobs are needed badly, and that I concede. But I believe that the Government are stumbling along this path in a way that will be damaging to the interests of Britain in the very near future and not only in the long term and the medium term. It will be detrimental to us because we shall suffer not only from an inadequate road system but from an inadequate telecommunications system as compared, say, with France. We shall suffer because of the piecemeal way in which the Government are approaching the cabling of Britain.
It is very important that British manufacturers win contracts to cable Britain. However, the way that the Government are going about it will ensure that those orders go to Holland. That will be very regrettable.
I have spoken for longer than I had intended. I wanted to put on record my view and that of my union that this legislation is ill-timed and ill-conceived. I regret very much that the Government are proceeding in this fashion.

Mr. Neale: It is tempting to follow the argument of the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Golding). I have listened to him on many occasions speaking authoritatively and knowledgeably about the industry. In all fairness to my right hon. Friend the Minister of State and his colleagues in the Home Office and the Secretary of State for Industry, they advanced stronly the view that the industry should be interactive-service led. The industry told them that it would have to be entertainment led in order to get off the ground. Therefore, that has tended to swing the argument or the presentation of the Bill round.
As one who has come to know rather more about cable than I knew a short time ago, it is clear that the industry is learning a great deal about the new possibilities, and trying to legislate is like trying to hit a moving target. Circumstances will change immediately the Bill becomes law.
Despite the criticism that has been levelled at my right hon. Friend because of the way in which he has introduced further changes, he has shown a real willingness on behalf of the Government to accommodate the views of all parties, which is commendable. The way in which he has at all times dealt graciously and tolerantly with various views has been a great example to hon. Members not only in Committee but in the House. I for one wish to thank him for that.
As near as can be achieved at this time, we have a Bill that will encourage those outside the House to look to the chances that they have. My right hon. Friend has made certain that as far as possible it will have a free hand in the complicated world of copyright, broadcasting, narrow casting, and so on. I thank him for his efforts.

Mr. Freud: The fact that the hour is late is not and must not be a reason for any hon. Member to make a different speech on Third Reading than he would have made at a more sociable hour. For that reason, it is lucky for the House that I did not intend to make a long speech on Third Reading.
It seems only a few weeks ago since Second Reading when there was widespread concern in Britain about the IBA's extension of franchise without readvertisement. The Bill gives no direction as to the circumstances in which the IBA should use its discretion in the extension. I hope that the recipients of such extension will have in some way paid for it by substantial investment in the new technology.
The Bill, as amended in Standing Committee, is a very different Bill from the one that came to us 37 new clauses and however many hundreds of amendments earlier. I hope that it is a better Bill. The Opposition cannot defeat the Government and we are all grateful to the Minister of State for his courtesy in listening to us, if not for coming forward and changing his mind as often as we might have had him do.
The Bill will give Britain interactive services provided on the back of the entertainment industry. We have now legislated for that and it will be achieved at no cost to the Government. It is right for the House to extend good wishes to all those who avail themselves of the services —communicators and consumers.
I finally gave a warning. People have only one pair of eyes. We already have four television channels. More Britons have video tape recorders than almost any other nation and it will not be easy for this new industry to provide compelling entertainment against the quality of entertainment that we now provide. It is right for we who have gone this far in the Bill to do our best to support the new cable operators.

Mr. Austin Mitchell: This is the Third Reading of the messiest legislation that the House has passed for several years, and certainly within my time here. When I retire from the House and take up the post of assistant lecturer at the Keith Joseph memorial shed at the polyversity, that will be all that is left of the university of Oxford, I shall use this Bill as an example of how not to legislate, and how not to approach a major problem.
It is tragic that the framework of the future, which will affect our lives in so many ways, and which will have to provide an enduring structure for cable and DBS has been handled in this shambolic, disorganised fashion. We have here an illegitimate offspring of Prime Ministerial enthusiasm, which was conceived in haste and repented at leisure, and will almost certainly finish off by being brought up at public expense, because that is its only possible future. The Minister's greatest achievement in the presentation of the Bill was to manage to keep a straight face throughout, and to reduce the broad principles to a kind of apologetic mumble, so different to his crisp and dynamic prose style, which is the approach that I prefer.
It is clear that the Prime Minister rushed in with an impetuous enthusiasm, believing that cable was to be the revolution, the new dawn in Britain—a new railway age linking up the country. The Home Office has been left to clear up the mess, and we in the Committee have been part of the process of repenting at leisure.
The process has taken three Bills — one that the House of Lords obligingly passed, another that was very different and that we on the Committee obligingly passed, and the third version, with numerous amendments, that we passed tonight. All that has been accompanied by commercial breaks designed to give opportunities to the Minister's friends—the pantheon of commercal interests on the Tory Benches, lobbying, for their benefit and that of the interests that they support, for concessions here, a little change here, and improvements. This has been accompanied also by some of the most intense commercial lobbying that I have known. That lobbying has been directed only to the interests of the Tory Benches, and has largely bypassed the interests of Labour Members, perhaps because the strength of our attachment to the principle of public service, standards in broadcasting and production in this country are known.
All this has happened because, as my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Golding) said, the Government did not get right the fundamental proposition on which cable has to be based. It is folly to insist on the companies putting their money underground, when the broad band cable should be provided by BT, and the companies should be content to provide the programmes, the entertainment and the information for the consumers. That is the only way to get rid of contractors that one does not like, to get change and to get effective public control. The whole basis of what the Government are attempting to do is wrong, as the Bill is wrong.
There is very little hope for cable, given that 11 contractors have submitted themselves and already many of them are losing faith and are in financial difficulties. Cable will be hived off as a cut-price telephone system, or a continuous bingo to try to get viewers away from the main channels.
The prospect even for DBS, which is better, and which is clearly the Prime Minister's new enthusiasm, is scarcely better, because of the huge costs involved. It has first had to inveigle money from the BBC, then from the commercial television companies, under the lure of having their contracts extended indefinitely, and now commercial interests. It is not creating a new market system, but a ménage à trois, a troilism in the sky, which will emerge from the cable system. Everything else follows from those initial mistakes.
In addition, the Government have smuggled in various other things under cover of passing the Bill, such as a national commercial radio network, which is not wanted, and cannot be afforded, without any estimate of whether the advertising revenue will be there to support not only cable and DBS but national commercial radio as well. Where is the enormous expansion of advertising revenue necessary to support those three new services to come from? What calculations have the Government made about the finances that will be available from an advertising cake which can grow only slowly and not in conformity with their boundless expectations?
That has been brought into this legislative ragbag, as has an extension of the life of the IBA, though not of the BBC. The IBA and the BBC will provide members for the Satellite Broadcasting Board, but the BBC's life is not to be extended.
The Bill is a sad apology for legislation. Si monumentum requiris, circumspice; look at the Prime Minister and her impetuosity — not a bull at a gate exactly, though a similar image might be applicable—look at the Home Office with its bureaucratic inertia, look at the vested interests and their simple greed, look around and see the Bill, a monument to all those forces brought together in this short-sighted measure. A great opportunity has been rather stupidly thrown away.

Mr. Bermingham: I agree with the Home Secretary that the Bill is the start of the cable revolution. I understand the argument that it is meant to be entertainment-led, but I hope that the Government will not leave it there.
My hon. Friend the Member fo Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Golding) rightly said that the Bill should have been about information technology. I said in Committee and on Report that the cabling of this country is crucial to our industrial development, in the widest sense, in the 21st century.
As one travels through Europe and elsewhere, it becomes increasingly apparent that the idea of shifting technology from place to place is crucial. Man talking to man or firm to firm, via an interactive system, saving journeys from one place to another, will be the pattern of industrial progress, in both manufacturing and the service industries. That is the way of the 1990s and the next century.
We have the opportunity to encourage industry. Like my hon. Friends, I should prefer British Telecom to cable the whole country. I wish the cable television operators well. Anything that I have said has not been meant as a criticism of them, though I have sometimes criticised the content of their proposed programmes. I wish them well, but for them to succeed, the country needs to be cabled. To encourage that, we must make it worthwhile and lay on the systems to enable all the other uses of cable.
In Committee, the hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, North-East (Mr. Freud) said that he was not particularly worried whether cable came to his constituency. That sort of attitude worries me considerably. We will not live for ever in industrial cities and it is through cable and such developments that we shall bring back industry to rural areas. That will be no bad thing. That is the sort of possible future use of cable.
I urge the Home Secretary, when thinking about the national commercial radio system which he mentioned on Second Reading, to bear in mind that in some rural areas there are local commercial stations which survive on a shoestring. If a national radio service were set up, one would fear for the future of those stations. People in south


Lancashire and on Merseyside have expressed to me their worries on this point, which should be borne in mind when the matter is further considered.
My mind returns to July last year and to the White Paper. The concept of cable is one that has always greatly excited me, because it has such great potential. It has potential in the entertainment sector, which I welcome. More importantly, it has a much more exciting and attractive future in industry. I hope that in the next stage of this development the Government will bear that sector very much in mind and seek to encourage it.

Bill read the Third time, and passed, with amendments.

Agricultural Holdings Bill [Lords]

Lords amendments to Commons amendments considered.

Schedule 1

MINOR AMENDMENTS WITH RESPECT TO STATUTORY SUCCESSION

The Lords have agreed to the amendment made by the Commons in page 19, line 40, at end insert:
7. The following Schedule shall be inserted after Schedule 3 to that Act—

SCHEDULE 3A

OCCUPATION OF LAND FOR PURPOSES OF STATUTORY SUCCESSION

Preliminary

1.—(1) In this Schedule "the occupancy condition" means paragraph (c) of the definition of "eligible person" in section 18(2) of this Act.

(2) For the purposes of this Schedule a body corporate is controlld by a survivor of the deceased if he or this spouse, or he and his spouse together, have the power to secure—

(a) by means of the holding of shares or the possession of voting power in or in relation to that or any other body corporate, or
(b) by virtue of any powers conferred by the articles of association or other document regulating that or any other body corporate;
that the affairs of that body corporate are conducted in accordance with his, her or their wishes, respectively.

(3) Any reference in this Schedule to the spouse of a survivor of the deceased does not apply in relation to any time when the survivor's marriage is the subject to a decree of judicial separation or a decree nisi of divorce or of nullity of marriage.

Excluded occupation

2.—(1) Occupation by a survivor of the deceased of any agricultural land shall be disregarded for the purposes of the occupancy condition if he occupies it only—

(a) under a tenancy approved by the Minister under section 2(1) of the 1948 Act or under such a tenancy relating to the use of land for grazing or mowing as is referred to in the proviso to that provision;
(b) under a tenancy for more than one year but less than two years;
(c) under a tenancy not falling within paragraph (a) or (b) above and not having effect as a contract of tenancy;
(d) under a tenancy to which section 3 of the 1948 Act does not apply by virtue of section 3B of that Act;
(e) as a licensee; or
(f) as an executor, administrator, trustee in bankruptcy or person otherwise deriving title from another person by operation of law.

(2) Paragraphs (a) to (e) of sub-paragraph (1) above do not apply in the case of a tenancy or licence granted to a survivor of the deceased by his spouse or by a body corporate controlled by him.

(3) References in the following provisions of this Schedule to the occupation of land by any person do not include occupation under a tenancy, or in a capacity, falling within paragraphs (a) to (f) of that sub-paragraph.

Deemed occupation in case of Tribunal direction

3. Where a survivor of the deceased is, by virtue of a direction of the Tribunal under section 20 of this Act, for the time being entitled (whether or not with any other person) to a tenancy of the whole or part of any agricultural holding held by the deceased at the date of death other than the holding, he shall, for the purposes of the occupancy condition, be deemed to be in occupation of the land comprised in that holding or (as the case may be) in that part of that holding.

Joint occupation

4.—(1) Where any agricultural land is jointly occupied by a survivor of the deceased and one or more other persons as—


(a) beneficial joint tenants;
(b) tenants in common;
(c) joint tenants under a tenancy; or
(d) joint licensees;
the survivor shall be treated for the purposes of the occupancy condition as occupying the whole of the land.

(2) If, however, the Tribunal in proceedings under section 20 of this Act determine on the survivor's application that his appropriate share of the net annual income which the land is, or was at any time, capable of producing for the purposes of section 18(3A) of this Act is or was then less than the aggregate of the earnings referred to in that provision then, for the purpose of determining whether the occupancy condition is or was then satisfied in his case, the net annual income which the land is, or (as the case may be) was, capable of so producing shall be treated as limited to his appropriate share.

(3) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (2) above the appropriate share of the survivor shall be ascertained—
(a) where he is a beneficial or other joint tenant or a joint licensee, by dividing the net annual income which the land is or was at the time in question capable of producing for the purposes of section 18(3A) by the total number of joint tenants or joint licensees for the time being;
(b) where he is a tenant in common, by dividing the said net annual income in such a way as to attribute to him and to the other tenant or tenants in common shares of the income proportionate to the extent for the time being of their respective undivided shares in the land.

Occupation by spouse or controlled company

5.—(1) For the purposes of the occupancy condition and of paragraph 4 above, occupation—
(a) by the spouse of a survivor of the deceased; or
(b) by a body corporate controlled by a survivor of the deceased;
shall be treated as occupation by the survivor.

(2) Where, in accordance with sub-paragraph (1) above, paragraph 4 above applies to a survivor of the deceased in relation to any time by virtue of the joint occupation of land by his spouse or a body corporate and any other person or persons, sub-paragraphs (2) and (3) of that paragraph shall apply to the survivor as if he were the holder of the interest in the land for the time being held by his spouse or the body corporate, as the case may be.

Ministerial statements as to net annual income from land

6. The reference in the definition of "relevant land" in section 18(6) of this Act to agricultural land which is occupied by any such person as is mentioned in paragraph (a) of that definition includes a reference to any agricultural land which is deemed to be occupied by him by virtue of this Schedule."."

with the following amendment:

Line 95, at end insert—
(4) Where by virtue of paragraph 3 above any land is deemed to be occupied by each of two or more survivors of the deceased as a result of a direction entitling them to a joint tenancy of the land, the preceding provisions of this paragraph shall apply to each of the survivors as if the land were jointly occupied by him and the other survivor or survivors as joint tenants under that tenancy.

The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. John MacGregor): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): With this it will be convenient to take Lords amendments Nos. 2 and 3.

Mr. MacGregor: These final amendments to the Agricultural Holdings Bill relate to the eligibility of applicants for succession. On Report in this House we debated this matter when I moved several amendments on behalf of the Government. During the debate on one of

those amendments the hon. Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham) drew attention to a loophole which he considered would still exist after the amendments had been made.
I said in reply that I recognised that
this is an extremely complicated area of law … I accept that there will inevitably be some loopholes and that it is not possible to put an end to all the difficulties."—[Official Report, 6 June 1984; Vol. 61, c. 399.]
I said, in conclusion, that I had taken note of the issues raised by the hon. Member for St. Helens, South.
These amendments deal with one of the loopholes. It has been pointed out that where the death of the tenant is anticipated, or where the tenant plans to retire under the inter-vivos retirement arrangements, it will be relatively easy for a potential applicant for succession who occupies a commercial unit to grant one of the forms of excluded tenancy or licence under paragraphs 2(1)(a) to (e) of new schedule 3A to a member of his family or even to an outsider. In this way the grantor would cease to be in occupation for a short period during which he can establish his eligibility and succeed to the tenant's holding.
These amendments close the loophole, and I commend them to the House.

Mr. Gerald Bermingham: I thank the Minister for his explanation. I agree that the amendments close one of the loopholes. My party accepts that it would be extremely difficult to close the other loophole, because of the tortuous drafting that would be involved. We accept that there are difficulties. The Agricultural Lawyers Association, which has been of considerable assistance to both sides of the House during all stages of the passage of the Bill, accepts that these amendments go a long way towards covering the matters that I raised on Third Reading and on Report. We hope that those who have to operate this legislation will accept that it was the intention of Parliament to ensure fairness in succession and in eligibility, and that the Act will be read in the spirit in which the Bill has been debated in this House.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 2 and 3 agreed to.

ESTIMATES

Resolved,
That this House agrees with the Report [5th July] of the Liaison Committee.—[Mr. Neubert.]

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
That, notwithstanding the practice of the House as to the intervals between stages of Bills brought in upon Ways and Means Resolutions, more than one stage of the Finance (No. 2) Bill may be taken at any sitting of the House. — [Mr. Neubert.]

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That, at the next sitting of the House on which Motions are moved on behalf of the Committee of Selection, such Motions may be proceeded with, though opposed, for one and a half hours after the first Motion has been entered upon, and, if proceedings on the Motions have not been disposed of by that hour, any Amendments to the first Motion which may have been selected by Mr. Speaker may be moved, the Questions thereon shall be put forthwith, and Mr. Speaker shall then put the Question upon the said Motion and any Questions necessary to dispose of the other Motions and of any Amendments moved thereto which


have been selected by him; and that, notwithstanding the practice of the House, each Motion shall be regarded as a single Motion. —[Mr. Neubert.]

Hon. Members: Object.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): Objection taken.

Grimsby Share Fishermen

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Neubert.]

Mr. Austin Mitchell: I am grateful for this opportunity to bring the economic plight of the Grimsby share fishermen to the attention of the House. They are a section of society who are so little known that hon. Members have asked me all day whether share fishermen, as printed on the Order Paper, is a misprint. It is not. It is a common form of fishing in Grimsby and other parts of the country. I believe that it originated in Denmark and it was common in the small boat inshore industry in earlier days. Now, with the decline of the big boat long-distance fishing industry, it is the predominant form of fishing in Grimsby and much of the rest of the country.
Grimsby has about 600 share fishermen, about 400 of whom are in regular employment on the same net fishing boats that are the basis of Grimsby's fishing fleet. It is a simple system. The boat and its owners take 55 per cent. of the return, on auction, on the fish. In more democratic firms it is 50 per cent. I understand that, in Scotland, the boat's share is normally 50 per cent. The crew at Grimsby take 45 per cent. of the return, after deduction of costs such as food, oil, fuel, rope and sometimes an allowance for the navigator. Those expenses amount to about one quarter of the return on most trips.
One subject of complaint is the fact that the expenses are made higher by the fact that bonded supplies cannot be taken on smaller fishing boats, as used to be the case with trawlers that fished distant water. The system is called settling on the net. That does not mean settling on the fishing net but net as distinct from gross. The 45 per cent. is divided on set lines between the crew.
There is some flexibility. If the skipper wants to attract an especially skilled fisherman, keep someone's services or is desperate to get someone on the boat, he can give that person a slightly larger share. Normally, however, the skipper will get 15 to 17 per cent., the deckie cook will get about 13 per cent. or slightly more, the other deckie will get 13 per cent. and the crew will get 3 per cent. or, in some cases, 4 per cent. Their number can be supplemented by a trainee who gets a basic wage of about £50 plus a proportion, depending on what the crew decide to allocate him, which might amount to between 1 per cent. and 3 per cent. of the catch. In addition, crew members get an allotment that is sent direct to their wives by the firm. It can be perhaps £40 a week, which is sent by messenger or sometimes by registered mail to support the wife and family while the husband is away.
The system was introduced and was popular when fishing was far more prosperous. Since then, we have hit fairly intense competition, a threat to conservation and stocks and the common fisheries policy. There has consequently been a reduction in catches and over fishing. When fishing was good, share fishing was popular. A successful skipper with a successful boat is still popular. In those circumstances, a lot of money can still be made. However, a successful skipper and a successful boat is comparatively, and increasingly, rare. Catching was down last year, and it is down again this year. In Grimsby, it must be down by about 25 per cent. Prices remain obstinately low and will not rise to the levels that are necessary to support the industry. In those circumstances,


share fishing is a system of exploitation. In many respects it is rather similar to share cropping in the southern states of the United States. Share fishing has become a system of exploitation and it is a serious economic problem for the fishermen who participate in it. The vessels are often merely breaking even. They are certainly not making the sort of profits that they have to accumulate in the summer months to enable them to survive through into the winter. They are not making the profits that will lead to investment in new vessels. We have an ageing fleet which is just about managing to keep going, but it is not providing the returns to provide benefits for the crews that share fishing should logically provide.
The catches are not big enough because of the various financial difficulties and the crews are returning in debt. Whatever their return on their share of the catch, they have to pay the allotment which has been allocated by the agents to their wives and families while they have been away. If there is not enough made on the catch to pay back the allotment, they finish each trip in debt. That is becoming increasingly the experience of skippers and crews in Grimsby. The debt to the agent accumulates and the agents are in debt to the bank. That is part of the crippling accumulation of debt that is hanging around the neck of the fishing industry.
I shall give the example of Mr. Kai Mathieson. His wife is one of several fishermen's wives who have approached me on the issue. She is the most persistent, efficient and effective in putting the share fisherman's case. She has brought me all her husband's settling sheets for 1983. They are from Tom Sleight (FS) Ltd., when he was on the "Ulla Viola" and the "East Bank", which he was on for most of the year. The returns show—they are available to anyone who wants to see them—that most of the trips that year ended in debt. There was an accumulation of debt of £1,631. The minority of trips which resulted in profit produced £535. The debts were much greater than the profits during that year. Mr. Mathieson finished up over £1,000 in debt as a result of fishing. That happened in 1983, and 1983 was a far better year than 1984 is turning out to be. Mr. Mathieson is on the "Arconia Bay" this year —he is the skipper of a new vessel and is working for a different agency—but this year has been even worse. He returned last week with his first profit. It was an 18-day trip off the Norwegian coast. He made £7,100 on the option with expenses of £2,800. That profit was with seven kit condemned. His share was £350 after tax and stamp. The money had to be used to pay the accumulated debts that have built up when he has not been in profit. His wife has had to shoulder that burden over the months. She has faced the bills that have waited to be paid.
How do these people manage? They manage only because the share fisherman's stamp is a cross between the self-employed stamp and the employee's stamp. They are able to sign on for unemployment benefit for the periods when they are on shore. That is all they get for the housing benefit to which they are entitled. It fluctuates wildly because of the money that they are making or not making. There can be a considerable fluctuation over two or three weeks. It is difficult to calculate housing benefit with any degree of certainty. The unemployment benefit is all that keeps the system going. The sacrifices fall entirely on the wives and families of the shore fishermen.
I have been provided by Mrs. Mathieson with her household expenditure for the month of June. It shows that only the allotment from the agent—£40 a week for her — plus her husband's unemployment benefit and the extra that she is able to get occasionally from social security has kept the family going. Indeed, there are weeks in the month in which she has ended up with substantially less income—on 22 June, £5 less than her outgoings.
It is a system in which the whole burden of sacrifice falls on the wives and families. As part of her energetic effort to put the case, Mrs. Mathieson went to the extent of writing to the Grimsby Evening Telegraph, asking people who felt as she did to write in to her. She had an astonishing number of replies. I shall quote from one or two of the letters which give a dramatic indication of the struggle that fishermen's wives have, just to keep going.
Mrs. Elliott reports that her husband, through no fault of his, comes home and lands in debt. She writes:
We have a mortgage of £125 per month, and when unemployed he gets £44 per week. If he is fortunate to make a few good trips then the money has to be laid by for gas and electricity bills, etc. We practically have no social life, maybe if we are lucky one night in a month. We are proud people. But now giving this chance to voice my views. The fishermen are the only ones in the state that are being made fools of'.
That is one reply to Mrs. Mathieson's appeal.
Mrs. Johnson, wrote to say that she has had two years in debt. After his last trip of 22 days her husband came home £128 in debt. She has to find £23 rent, the money for school dinners and for gas, and has to borrow money from the firm. She adds that they cannot go out, and cannot even buy chocolate for the kids. Her husband has earned £163 so far this year. She wants a divorce. She might not like that to be mentioned, but I am afraid I have mentioned it. That is another examaple of the strains that fishermen's wives have to endure.
Another lady, whose name I will not give, says that her husband was three weeks at sea and ended up £80 in debt; still writing after three weeks for social security and has not received it. He was offered a food voucher.
Another lady writes that "Fishing wants stuffing." Her husband was 16 days at sea and ended up £180 in debt. The husband gets £95 a week. Rent of £25 is being paid from the last trip.
Another lady writes about the family being three years in debt through fishing. The husband has been waiting for some weeks to go to sea. She asks why he should do that, only to accumulate more debt.
That kind of burden is falling on the wives of fishermen, thanks to this system, and it is now becoming difficult to persuade people to go to sea. Why should they go to sea in order to come back with an accumulated burden of debt? It is a story of accumulated debt and increasing struggle, and it is made worse by two other factors.
There is nobody to speak for the men. They can join the Transport and General Workers' Union. The union cannot negotiate for them, because it would be involved in negotiating hundreds of agreements with all the different vessels. They have a Share Fishermen's Association which has managed to get a Save and Prosper pension scheme agreed by the owners, but that is the only improvement in their lot that has taken place over the years. There is nobody to fight for them.
The system favours the powerful, as is shown by what happens to rebates on fuel. They have not been paid now for two years, but when they were paid the rebate on fuel


went to the owner of the vessel; it was not taken into account in any recalculation of the men's share, because that had already been paid out to them.
The men go to sea because that is their way of life; they know no other. They want to go to sea. It has a lure and an attraction for them. They are not natural conformists or natural nine-to-five workers. They want to go to sea but they are paying to accept one of the hardest lives and hardest existences in this country. It is a job where the men have little time at home. From my experience of a few days on a seine netter, I found that the men are at work from dawn to dusk continually. The work is physically exhausting. It is also extremely dangerous and becoming more so. The number of total losses of fishing vessels under 40 ft in five-year periods has increased steadily over the years. In the period 1968–1972 there were 29 total losses only of vessels under 40 ft; 1973–1977 there were 41 and 1978–82 there were 68.
The risk factor per 100,000 vessels has shot up. In 1978 it was 0·6 per cent. In 1982 the figure had increased to 4·5 per cent. The deaths per 100,000 employed in the industry as the vessels become older and as investment falters have increased from 114 in 1961 — compared to 40 per 100,000 employed in coal mining, which is supposed to be the toughest industry—to 247 fishermen killed per 100,000 in 1979, the last year for which I have the figures. The figure has more than doubled since 1961. There were 25 miners killed. That figure has almost halved. That is the price of fish and it is increasing. It is the toughest, worst paid, and worst treated job in the United Kingdom. We owe an enormous amount to the fishermen who have to put to sea in such conditions.
I want to suggest to the Minister that there are things that could be done. I shall do so briefly because I know that the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) wishes to intervene about the Grimsby Landing Company and the threat of the port closure which is hanging over us.
The only way to keep the industry going and allow it to pay a decent return to its employees is to renew the operating aid which we had for three years and which has now stopped. France is still paying a fuel subsidy. Why can we not pay an operating subsidy which is channelled to the men to help support them? Secondly, we need a proper system of market support and an adequate system of withdrawal prices so that the crew do not come back with a completely inadequate return and end up in debt, or we shall have to establish co-operatives which will give the men some muscle in the market.
Thirdly, we must regulate the employment and structure of share fishing to increase the wage element at the expense of the share-of-the-catch element to give the men a guaranteed income in these increasingly hard times. The Minister should do something for an industry which needs these men and their contribution, but which feels that it is being allowed to drift. The industry is treated as agriculture under the treaty of Rome but does not receive anything like the help and support that agriculture receives.
It is an industry which is vital to this country. The men who serve that industry have had a hard time and a raw deal and it is time that something was done for them.

Mr. Michael Brown: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr.

Mitchell) for allowing me a few moments of the debate. He speaks for many of my constituents who work in Great Grimsby when he draws attention to the plight of the share fishermen.
Will my hon. Friend the Minister consider another problem which affects not just the share fishermen but the whole fishing community of Grimsby? During the next few weeks, or maybe the next few days, the Grimsby Landing Company will have to make some difficult and momentous decisions which will determine whether there is to be a fishing industry with share fishermen going to sea from the port of Grimsby.
The debts have piled up in the landing company because of the difficulties in trying to strike the correct balance between the costs of the dock labour force and the need to retain sufficient dockers and lumpers to deal with the fish coming into the port. I hope that my hon. Friend will use his offices to liaise closely with the Department of Employment to try to bring together the local employers and the lumpers' representatives to draw attention to the terrible position not just of share fishermen but of the port of Grimsby.

The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. John MacGregor): I congratulate the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) on his stamina, after his performance during the debate on the Cable and Broadcasting Bill. Such was his stamina that he was rather carried away, leaving me with little time in which to respond. I shall do my best.
The hon. Gentleman made it clear that particular groups of fishermen working on a share basis are in difficulties. I sympathise with them. I certainly wish to minimise the difficulties faced by the fishermen, their wives and their families. I listened carefully to his suggestions, and shall try to touch on his three main points.
The hon. Gentleman will recognise that share fishermen are in a privileged position with regard to unemployment benefit, and that is helpful in view of their fluctuating earnings. They are self-employed, and such people do not normally qualify for unemployment benefit. The exception has been made for share fishermen so that although they are self-employed, they may in certain circumstances qualify for benefit. That is one way in which we can help.
I accept all that the hon. Gentleman said about the hardships that those fishermen sometimes face at sea. Much of the hon. Gentleman's statements concerned the point that fishing was not producing the necessary earnings, partly because of the reduction in landings at Grimbsby, especially of cod. It is clear that the share fisherman's position is insecure. His earnings are unpredictable — they will be governed by weather conditions, fluctuations in the market and his success in locating and taking fish. It is true that many of those factors are outside the fisherman's control. It is true also that some meet the problems more successfully than others, as the Gentleman said when talking about successful skippers. At the same time some are facing difficulties, others are prospering. That is true in fishing, as it is in other areas of business. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman agrees that the Government cannot be expected to protect people who have elected to venture into any area of self-employment from all the risks inherent in that decision nor, I suspect, from knowing the self-employed


and the fishermen, would those concerned expect them to. The Government have a role to play in establishing the general framework in which those people operate. I shall try to put the hon. Gentleman's remarks about low returns, the problems of debts, support for the industry and the special problems of Grimsby in their wider context.
I shall examine two broad areas — first, the framework of Government and community policy within which the industry generally has to work and, secondly, the general economic picture of the industry. We have often talked about the importance of the successful negotiation of the common fisheries policy which creates a broad framework within which the industry can plan for the future. That is what the industry wanted and what it has welcomed.
Positive measures have been taken to conserve stocks. That is important in the case of cod, because a considerable part of the reduction in landings of cod is due, I suspect, to overfishing. Conservation measures,. which mean a lower quota and lower TAC this year, are therefore important for fishermen in the longer term.
A series of structural measures has been agreed and implemented to help the industry bring about those changes that are necessary to achieve a better and more profitable balance between fishing capacity and opportunities. That is important for fishermen in the longer term.
The hon. Gentleman referred to aids for the industry and other member states of the community. It is right to emphasise the generosity of the financial provisions for the restructuring programme. It means money going into the industry. It is right also to point out that we in the United Kingdom were first in all the Community to make the full range of grants available under the European Community's programme to our fishermen. Up to £85 million is available from Community funds and from our Exchequer to finance a range of measures during the next three years. As the hon. Gentleman knows, decommissioning grants are available to encourage the removal from the fleet of vessels which are not viable under present conditions. That scheme is linked with a licensing system that seeks to ensure that vessels that are decommissioned with grant are not replaced with new vessels designed to pursue what the industry now knows as "pressure stocks". The value of this measure to the individual concerned is evident, but the benefits will be felt more widely, because this adjustment in the fleet will reduce the number of vessels seeking a share of our quotas. Already, more than £6 million has been paid out under the scheme, and more applications are in the pipeline. Other schemes provide for laying up grants and grants to support exploratory voyages and joint ventures.
That is one part of the adjustment story. The second part is investment in the future, to which the hon. Gentleman referred, in the building and modernisation of fishing vessels. The largest single allocation from the £85 million that I mentioned—£42 million—is for building and modernisation. This is as it should be, since the viability of the industry over the medium and longer term will depend crucially on maintaining a satisfactory level of investment in vessels.
The hon. Member for Great Grimsby will remember that it was recently announced that FEOGA building and modernisation grants totalling nearly £3 million have come

to the United Kingdom from the most recent round of grant allocations. Grimsby featured prominently in the list. Indeed, Grimsby vessel owners have received more than £602,000 from Community funds during the past three years out of a total for English vessels of £2,040,000.
The third leg of the adjustment process is to improve the marketing of fish. As the hon. Gentleman knows, I was able to announce a grant of just under £8 million towards the cost of launching the SFIA's marketing programme during the next three years. If it succeeds in creating a greater willingness to consume fish in the United Kingdom, it will help prices in the longer term.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned market support. The Community has a market regime for fish within which the Government and the industry must work in relation to third countries and the internal market within the Community. In the internal market fishermen who opt to join producer organisations, set up under the Community market regime, can and are expected to work together to balance supply and demand in their markets. Moreover, they in turn qualify for FEOGA assistance when fish is withdrawn from the market when it fails to reach the official withdrawal price. Some general rules must be met and these cause problems for the producer organisation operating in Grimsby. However, the general point remains valid: there is a market support regime which provides a safety net in the market, and it works successfully for other producer organisations in many parts of the country.
There is a particular problem about the dock labour scheme, which enables me to refer to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown). As my hon. Friend and the hon. Gentleman know, I have taken a close interest in the working of the national dock labour scheme as it affects the fish docks in Grimsby. When I was in Grimsby recently that point was most commonly put to me as causing difficulties for the fishing industry. I have discussed it with my hon. Friend and with my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Department of Employment. The problem is best tackled locally. I was keen to encourage local people to get together, and I continue to say just that. It is important that all those locally consider the present position to see whether the present practices are most appropriate to present-day conditions and whether there is scope for change to improve the port as a landing place for British and foreign vessels.
My hon. Friend the Minister of State, Department of Employment had a meeting recently about the Grimsby Fish Landing Company. This month there is a special scheme for voluntary severance payments for registered dockers and considerable interest has been shown. It is too early to say whether this will make a difference, but it could do so, if it reduced the number of registered dockers.
The provision of support for the industry demonstrates clearly the Government's commitment to doing all that they can to create a climate in which the industry can plan for the future and prosper. Because of all the Government aid, there is no case for repeating the special subsidy paid for operating aid in the special circumstances of 1980 to 1982, which were introduced because the common fisheries policy was not in place, even if such a scheme stood a chance of successfully resisting challenge from the Commission. The French operating subsidy to which the hon. Gentleman referred is currently being challenged by the Commission.
Many problems relate to the difficulties with cod this year and last. The total value of landings of fish in Grimsby have been lower so far this year than during the corresponding period last year. It reflects lower total landings and there are many reasons for that. At the same time prices have been firm. The Grimsby average price for all demersal species during the first 25 weeks of the year was 13 per cent. higher than in the same weeks of 1983. Average prices for cod and haddock were up by about 20 per cent.
I could have said much more if I had had more time. Finally, the hon. Gentleman will recognise that the third of his suggestions about a different arrangement for allocating the returns for share fishermen, must be taken

up with the industry and the fishermen. The Government cannot intervene. The industry and fishermen must agree to new arrangements if they are appropriate.
I hope that I have shown that the Government have created an environment in which the fishing industry can plan for the future with confidence. However, success will come to a port only if all concerned pull together and respond effectively to a developing position and the challenges that they face. This is especially relevant in Grimsby, which has special problems, in which I have taken and will continue to take a close interest.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at six minutes to Two o'clock.